Full text 
Wednesday, 26 November 2014 - Strasbourg Revised edition

17. Recognition of Palestine statehood (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission / Hohen Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zur Anerkennung der palästinensischen Eigenstaatlichkeit (2014/2964(RSP)).


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, first of all, let me say how much I appreciate the fact of being here in this capacity for the first time in my mandate, in this first three weeks or so, and maybe to reassure you and all this Parliament of the fact that maybe we can go back to the way the Treaties call me: High Representative/Vice-President. I assure you that I will be Vice-President of the Commission, so there is no need to switch the order. I give you a political reassurance on that, but I think it is good if we all stick to the Treaties in content and in form.

First of all, I would like to thank you for this timely debate. I think it is a crucial debate coming at a crucial time. I have just visited, in my first week in office, Israel and Palestine, including Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I can report back to you, as I did to the Foreign Affairs Council, that there is a sense of urgency in the region, on both sides – very different on one side compared to the other side, but on both sides there is a very tense situation where the lack of a political perspective is, at one and the same time, the consequence and the result and the cause of violence that risks returning. We see that in these weeks, with terrorist attacks on one side and decisions on the other side that risk endangering the perspective of a two-state solution.

This sense of urgency is becoming greater and greater in the absence of a political perspective. In the past months we experienced first the suspension of the talks last spring, then the conflict in Gaza. Luckily, and thanks to a good political initiative by some actors in the region and internationally – starting with Egypt – a ceasefire was reached at the end of August followed by a donors’ conference not many weeks ago, once again in Cairo. But none of this is reopening the path to a political perspective, to direct talks or to steps that can bring back hope in the fact that what we call the ‘two-state solution’ can become a reality in the near future.

We have some open points. On one side we have the dramatic open point of Gaza, where I saw a desperate situation, where I saw that the Palestinian Authority has more than difficulties in doing what we all hope it could do: start to rule Gaza, starting with the security side and control of the crossings. And on the other side we have decisions like the one on the settlements, which is actually moving in an opposite direction, rather than the one indicated by the agreed negotiations.

In this framework, I think this debate today about the role that the European Union can play in this process is crucial. That is why I decided to go in my first week in office, because we are the first trade partner for Israel and we are the first donor for the Palestinian Authority. We can be the first political player in the region to facilitate a dialogue, which has to be a direct dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but which maybe, for the first time really, has the chance of becoming regional.

I saw during my visit – and I have shared this with the Member States of the European Union too – the fact that maybe we have for the first time such a dramatic threat and challenge in the region, in the Middle East– namely Daesh – that poses the actors in the region with a different set of priorities. I saw an awareness both in Israel and in Palestine that the order of priorities is changing, not only in the region but also in Europe, and also on the other side of the Atlantic, also for the international community, and that we have a clear possibility there of uniting different actors which now share the same concern for the security and stability of the region. We have threats in the regional framework today, but maybe we also have an opportunity coming out of these threats.

On the other side, the vacuum that is there and which risks being even more relevant, especially in Gaza, given the regional framework, could lead to even more dangerous outcomes. The situation in Gaza will either get better on the ground or there is a risk that it will open the way for a more worrying situation, in terms of who controls what in that territory and who networks with whom in the region. That is why I think it would be wise from my side today not only to listen to you in the debate, but also to try to give you some input on what kind of political elements we can have, as the European Union, to restart a peace process, to restart a political process – a political perspective.

I will start with the regional framework. I believe that in 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative was probably a missed opportunity. Today that could constitute one of the elements of a renewed effort, regionally and internationally, to put actors around the table. We know that we have a Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but we also know that we have an Arab-Israeli conflict that we have to work on. Maybe this set of threats and opportunities in the region could give us an opportunity to work on the Middle East peace process on a broader scale and include, in particular, not only the Arab League – which will have the ministerial meeting this weekend and which is certainly listening carefully to the messages coming out of here today – but also some key Arab countries: certainly Egypt, not only for the role that it has played historically and in the past months, but also because it has a certain leverage on Gaza through Rafah, and also Jordan, as it has a special role regarding the status of the holy sites in Jerusalem. I would also mention Saudi Arabia as the initiator of the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002.

I can share here with you the thoughts that I shared with the Member States during the last Foreign Affairs Council on the need to have a European Union initiative, together with the Arab League and Arab States, in particular, and with the US – I am in constant contact with John Kerry, who is renewing his commitment to reopen the way for negotiations – and with the UN, also because we know that the UN Security Council could be a way to redefine the framework of an initiative. I would mention the UN Security Council with a view to having a resolution that would not split, but rather unite, the international actors to find a solution.

The European Union effort is at the same time trying to put that framework together. I will not just take into account but I will take note of your debate today, because I believe that the parliamentary debates – and then if you are going to take a vote on this next month – can fit into the process of a European common approach.

You know very well that the recognition of a state is not within the competences of the European Union. Technically and politically this is the responsibility of individual Member States, but I would never say to you – in the same way that I have not said this to the Ministers of the Member States when we had the Foreign Affairs Council last week – I would never say that this is not my business. This is obviously technically not my business, but politically it is, because I believe that we need – and I appreciate the drafts that I have seen of the resolutions that encourage me to do so – to share a vision and to share a common understanding of the situation and also, if we can also manage it – and I think Parliament can help us in that – to shape a common European approach of national initiatives that could go in the same direction.

In this I think that this Parliament can play a very important role. That message is coming across today. I will take the opportunity to reply at the end of the debate, but it is also important for me today to listen to the orientation that is coming from the European Parliament, knowing that only if we manage to take into account all the different views and try to make a common view from these different views – coming from both different political groups and different Member States – will we have the chance to fully play our role in the region. Only if we send united messages as the European Union in the region can our potential really be used.

Here also comes a good leverage that you have in terms of parliamentary diplomacy. Do not under estimate it. I will do all that I can, and I know that you know that you can count on that. But you also have some instruments, some important instruments, in your daily or weekly or monthly contacts with the counterparts there. If we manage to send a united and strong message, we probably have a chance of influencing the course of the events in the Middle East.

I would like to state what our common position is already: sometimes we just refer to the two-state solution as a slogan, and I think it is useful to say what this means. Because I was surprised by the fact that, when I said when I was in Israel and Palestine that we need a Palestinian State, surprise! Well, the two-state solution means that we have to have an Israeli State that is able to live in security – and this is an issue we have to deal with – and also a Palestinian State that we do not have at the moment.

So I said publicly that we can discuss the recognition of a Palestinian State. Some Member States are doing that in national parliaments; you are going to have a debate in this Parliament and I will be listening to your orientation very carefully. National governments are going to take decisions, or not, at this time or later, but the important thing is that we all work together towards the same goal with the most effective instruments, coordinating these instruments if we manage to. And that is my responsibility, to achieve these results, and these results are the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, with swops if agreed, with Jerusalem as capital of the two states, and this has already been agreed; this is a central common historical position.

But I think it is right that we go into the details of what our historical position is, to remind ourselves what a two-state solution means, with the right of Israel not only to exist but to exist in security and safety and peace in the region, and with all the Palestinians – all the Palestinians, whether in the West Bank, in Jerusalem or in Gaza – having one state finally.

I am looking forward to listening to your contributions to that and I will take note of them in this framework, that of someone who knows very well that opinions which are expressed in Parliament, even if they are not, as in this case, targeted at an imminent decision that can become operational – because it is not in the power of the European Parliament, as it is not in the power of the High Representative/Vice-President, to recognise a state – it is our common responsibility to work together to achieve the goal that I just stated: the creation of a Palestinian State within this framework and working with Israel to guarantee peace and security in the region.

I believe – I said that to the Israelis and I said it also to the Palestinians, and I am saying also to the Arab countries in the region – that there is no way of having security if we do not have a Palestinian State, and there is no way of having a Palestinian State if we do not guarantee stability, security and peace to the Israelis too. That is the very same concept, the core of the efforts that the European Union has always worked on. Today it is probably more difficult than ever, but sometimes, when it is more difficult, people around the table realise that a plus of political will and internal leadership is needed and they might make an effort in that direction.


  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Mehrheit der Palästinenser und die Mehrheit der Israelis wollen Frieden, wollen Frieden auf der Grundlage einer Zweistaatenlösung. Aber es gibt Kräfte auf der palästinensischen Seite, insbesondere die Hamas, die keine Zweistaatenlösung haben will und Gewalt ausübt in Gaza. Und es gibt Kreise in der Gesellschaft Israels, die das auch nicht wollen und die auch zum Teil in der Regierung sitzen und keine Zweistaatenlösung haben wollen. Wir haben gegenwärtig eine Situation, die wieder gefährlich wird: Auf der einen Seite muss eine Öffnung Gazas stattfinden, damit es sich entwickeln kann, auf der anderen Seite hat Israel einen Anspruch darauf, dass es nicht von Gaza aus mit Raketen beschossen wird. Beides gehört zusammen. Die Tatsache, dass wir die Sache mit dem Tempelberg haben, wie auch der Anschlag auf die Synagogen zeigt, wie gefährlich es ist, wenn Politik und Religion miteinander vermischt werden und hier eine zusätzliche Radikalisierung herbeigeführt wird. Die Frage mit den settlements spricht zudem für sich selbst.

Unser Ziel ist eine Zweistaatenlösung mit einem sicheren jüdischen Staat Israel und einem lebensfähigen Staat Palästina. Dies geht nur auf der Grundlage der gegenseitigen Anerkennung, wie die Hohe Beauftragte gerade am Schluss ihrer Rede deutlich gemacht hat. Eines bedingt das Andere, deswegen kann man nicht das Eine vorher anerkennen, wenn nicht auch alles andere gegeben ist, sondern dieser Zusammenhang muss deutlich gesehen werden.

Die Vorstellung, die Vereinigten Staaten und die Vereinten Nationen stärker einzubringen und nach dem Prinzip zu handeln „we would not like to be just the biggest donors we want to be also a player there“, bedeutet, dass die Europäische Union hier jetzt mehr politische Initiative zu ergreifen hat. Außerdem glaube ich, dass die Verantwortung der arabischen Staaten für diesen Friedensprozess – das sind teilweise auch Stellvertreterkriege, die da stattfinden – von großer Bedeutung ist und hier die entsprechenden Fähigkeiten zustande gebracht werden müssen, diesen Konflikt zu lösen, der in diesen Tagen weit über die Region hinaus zunehmend große Bedeutung hat. Aus diesem Grund hoffe ich, dass wir in der Lage sein werden, aufgrund unserer Entschließung eine gemeinsame Position zu erarbeiten. Denn wenn wir getrennt handeln, wird es eine sehr schwierige Situation sein, dass wir unseren Beitrag leisten für eine friedliche Entwicklung.


  Richard Howitt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, today’s debate is quite simply saying that, if we support a two-state solution, then we must support Palestine as a state. It is an attempt to break the deadlock in which the viability of the two-state solution is increasingly questioned to avoid a new apartheid, which some say is already here. We used to talk about a roadmap, but that has been forgotten. This is an attempt to restart the journey.

To our Israeli friends, your representative called this move giving Palestinians a state on ‘a silver platter’. Some platter! But, as my own party has said in Britain, Palestinian statehood is not a gift to be given, it is a right to be recognised. Our move today is supported by former Israeli Ambassadors to France, Turkey and South Africa, the former Israeli Attorney General and the former Speaker of the Knesset. They are not anti-Israel and, I promise you, neither are we.

My group absolutely joins the condemnation of the horrendous Har Nof synagogue bombing, but the conclusion we draw from this and other terrorist acts is that status quo is not guaranteeing peace and security for the Israeli people. To those who have argued for delay this week, why should parliaments in Spain, France, Sweden, Ireland, the United Kingdom and now Denmark take the initiative, but not this European Parliament? To my friends in the European People’s Party, your current offer is to say that recognition can only be the outcome of successful talks, but that is only restating what is already the case. We share your concern that this must be a contribution towards talks, and I restate our willingness to find with you a good compromise on this point. To our Palestinian friends, we recognise that you have held back on asking us to do this until now, and we recognise that international recognition is vital to maintaining hope amongst your people to sustain political support for peace.

Why should the European Parliament act? Because there is impatience at the continued settlement-building and despair at the continuing death toll. Because, as we have already heard from Mrs Mogherini, EU foreign ministers are discussing this, and there are merits to a common EU approach. Because, on the day of the award of the Sakharov Prize, our Parliament should remember the Israeli woman to whom we gave the Sakharov Prize in 2001, who lost her own child to a Palestine suicide bomber, and who asked us to support this proposal. Given what she lost and what she asked us, who are we to disagree?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  James Carver (EFDD), blue-card question. – Does Mr Howitt accept that one of the largest stumbling blocks to a lasting peace is the Hamas call for the destruction of the State of Israel? Does he agree with me that, were Hamas to revoke this core principle, then it could lead to a fresh, everlasting approach?


  Richard Howitt (S&D), blue-card answer. – I am absolutely for Hamas and everyone else recognising the right of Israel to exist, and for peace and security for the Israeli people. My group will always speak out against terrorism. However, these terrorist acts are killing Israelis just as Palestinians were killed in Gaza, and the status quo is failing. My group believes that this initiative can, in recognising the Palestinian State, provide the extra impetus which finally brings talks to a successful conclusion and peace to the Middle East. This is a vote for peace.


  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, we in this House all dream of the day when we may welcome the end of the hostilities and when peace between Israel and the Palestinians will finally be achieved in the Middle East. For as long as I have been an MEP, the debate as to how we can in fact realise this objective has been a matter of fierce exchange in this House and elsewhere. My group, the ECR, accepts that lasting peace can only be achieved when all sides return to the negotiating table in order to bring about a two-state solution. We support this two-state solution as being the only feasible outcome for long-term peace and stability, and we are fully committed to working towards the eventual recognition of a sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, which may peacefully co-exist alongside Israel, based on the 1967 borders with land for peace swaps. However, I personally have deep concerns regarding whether this particular motion today, for unilateral recognition of Palestine, is premature.

The dual needs of mutual recognition and concrete security arrangements on the ground, which are of paramount importance in achieving peace, would not be addressed by EU Member States granting immediate symbolic recognition to a fledgling Palestinian state. Furthermore, there are fears that this resolution might endanger peace by facilitating a hardening of the Palestinian position towards more intransigence and preventing lasting mutual recognition. This will all require much compromise in order to achieve the final agreement. As such, unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state at this stage would, in my view, arguably not assist in bringing Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to the negotiating table, but might actually result in pushing the two sides further apart.

We must recognise the Palestinian state at a time most helpful to the peace process. But firstly we must resolve the question of Gaza under Hamas, which is an EU-designated terrorist organisation. Whilst I have serious reservations as to whether this resolution is a good idea at this time, solving this issue will nevertheless remain a foreign policy priority for the ECR, and I agree with you, Madam Vice-President/High Representative: the 2002 Arab peace initiative is a very good place to start the negotiations, even today, a decade later.


  Fernando Maura Barandiarán, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor Presidente, en el curso de los últimos años ha ido creciendo la desconfianza de los ciudadanos europeos respecto de las instituciones de la Unión, consideradas distantes, excesivamente burocráticas y lentas, envejecidas, sin capacidad de reacción.

Pues bien, con el aplazamiento en relación con la Resolución sobre el reconocimiento del Estado de Palestina volvemos a enviar a los ciudadanos el mensaje que tanto se nos critica. Nosotros, los europeos, que nos hemos distinguido por la defensa y promoción de la dignidad humana contra las múltiples violencias y discriminaciones de las causas justas, que nos hemos distinguido por levantar la voz cuando era necesario, volvemos a no estar a la altura de las circunstancias. Diría, incluso, que volvemos a anteponer los intereses a los valores fundamentales del pensamiento europeo. Sin embargo, no me resigno.

En un mundo complejo y en rápido movimiento como es el actual, debemos aspirar a ser un Parlamento protagonista, no seguidista de los Estados miembros. Debemos fijar los intereses y establecer las prioridades de los estados sobre la base de los valores comunes que constituyen los cimientos de la Unión Europea. No nos podemos permitir seguir estando a la cola de las decisiones. Debemos estar en la vanguardia.

Estimados colegas, el valiente anuncio del Parlamento sueco de reconocer el Estado de Palestina debe ser el comienzo de una nueva ola de reconocimientos internacionales que debemos apoyar. Nuestra influencia no puede seguir conformándose con el envío de grandes cantidades de recursos públicos para reconstruir una región cada vez que los israelíes y los palestinos entran en conflicto.

Debemos liderar la presión internacional en la búsqueda de una solución basada en la creación de dos Estados, el israelí y el palestino, coexistiendo en paz, seguridad y prosperidad. Una solución que el Parlamento Europeo lleva años, décadas, defendiendo. Y es, por lo tanto, nuestra responsabilidad política ayudar a que dicha solución se materialice cuanto antes. No podemos posponerlo más.

Reconocer a Palestina será un paso que las generaciones futuras recordarán como la decisión de Europa de ponerse en el lado correcto de la Historia. Reconocer el Estado palestino es invertir en paz.


  Martina Anderson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, 135 countries already – representing approximately 80% of the world’s population – recognise Palestinian statehood. This includes eight EU Member States, most recently Sweden. There have been resolutions passed in Ireland and Britain calling for recognition of Palestinian statehood. Similar debates will take place in France, Belgium and Demark.

The Israeli onslaught in Gaza this summer has shown that the status quo is not acceptable to the millions we represent who protested, and it should not be acceptable to anyone who genuinely supports a peaceful and just resolution. Those who claim that recognition of the Palestinian State would negatively impact on future negotiations, ignore the reality that 20 years of negotiations have advanced little and have reinforced Israel’s occupation, which consistently undermines a two-state solution through settlement expansion and land confiscation.

The international community needs to influence change by action, because the worrying situation emerging in East Jerusalem and the preposterous Jewish State Bill demonstrate clearly that Israel is not prepared to be a partner for peace. Recognising the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders will send a clear message that the international community and the EU are opposed to occupation and committed to a two-state solution involving two fully-fledged, recognised states, as outlined by the High Representative: Israel and Palestine.


  Tamás Meszerics, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all let me thank the High Representative for sharing with us her thoughts about the thorny question of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and about the recognition of the state of Palestine as part of the two-state solution. Thank you, Madam High Representative, for expressing your openness to note the results of this debate and to take it into consideration in your further steps.

I especially welcome your call for a united and strong message coming from this very Chamber, but let me just tell you that the united and strong message that you, Madam, expect from us could have come forward more easily had we had the opportunity to debate a resolution with this debate. The fact that we cannot debate a resolution seems to be a result of a slight majority at the time on Monday but I very much hope that the result of the debate will change the minds of many of those who voted to remove the resolution from the table.

I understand what my colleagues on the Right are saying: that we have to do a lot for a comprehensive peace settlement, we have to help both the Palestinians and the Israeli side in regard to going back to the negotiating table and achieving a lasting result, and I understand that we are far from it. There is a lot to do. Nobody denies that and we Greens very much hope that the EU will be among the most important partners to help bring that about. But for the life of me I cannot understand how that can be hampered, how that can be objected to, by actually recommending to the Member States recognition of the Palestine State on the basis of the 1967 borders now.

It is just not me that does not understand that. Let me offer you a quote: ʽRecognition of Palestine would help to preserve the two-state solution’, which is the policy of all responsible political parties in Europe. ‘It would reward and encourage moderation’ on both sides. This does not come from what my Conservative friends sometimes call the loony left; it does not come from a raving anti-Semitic extreme right. It actually it comes from Sir Vincent Fean who served as British Consul-General in Jerusalem for four years. I cannot get a higher authority on that except possibly Alon Liel, a former Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who shares these thoughts.

If we are worried, rightly, that the European Union is becoming lame, then actually we should be worried because we are making it lame, unless we vote immediately for the recognition of Palestine.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – The EU’s interference in Ukraine was close to causing war, and I do not see why it would do any good for this body to interfere in the arrangements that are already being made by major states. This business in Palestine/Israel has been going on for the best part of 2 000 years, and if the Roman Empire and Pontius Pilate could not solve it with their rather rougher methods, I do not see how this body can do much better. Why not leave it to the Americans, the British, the French and the Russians – the major powers – to settle this as best they can? It does no good for people in this Chamber to interfere in this.


  Tamás Meszerics (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – I am not sure what kind of answer you are expecting from me on that one, as Britain and France are actually Member States of the European Union, represented here in this very Chamber. That is one thing. The other thing is that, at the end of the day, if 135 states have already recognised the State of Palestine and this did not increase the violence, why would recognition by a few more Member States of the European Union do that? I cannot understand why it should.


  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi: Palestina – perché deve nascere questo Stato? Perché è un atto dovuto al popolo palestinese, ma è anche nell'interesse israeliano; soprattutto, è una necessità etica, storica e politica, un muro maestro nella casa della pace. Ma quando in quest'Aula discutiamo di riconoscimento e qualcuno lo subordina alla pace, dobbiamo ricordare a noi stessi che si tratta di due situazioni ben distinte. Il riconoscimento di uno Stato spetta infatti alla comunità internazionale; il processo di pace tra Israele e Palestina, invece, riguarda i loro popoli. Non dobbiamo confonderci. Ecco perché la conclusione preventiva della pace sarebbe utile, ma non può essere condizione imprescindibile.

Il negoziato deve essere su un piano di parità giuridica quanto politica. Ma riconoscere uno Stato implica attribuirgli non solo dei diritti ma anche dei precisi doveri, perché un vero Stato deve avere un governo legittimo e democratico, garante della sicurezza del suo territorio e in grado di disarmare le organizzazioni settarie ed estremiste. Il popolo palestinese non può riuscirci da solo. Ha bisogno della nostra presenza e della nostra esperienza, non solo dei nostri soldi. Siamo noi i loro vicini. Se non ci assumiamo queste concrete responsabilità, noi illuderemo i palestinesi, inganneremo gli israeliani e in definitiva mentiremo a noi stessi.

Dopo 66 anni non possiamo degradare questa occasione a un misero tentativo di lavare la nostra coscienza. Davanti a sé, il futuro Stato palestinese ha due strade, i due opposti estremi del mondo islamico odierno: da un lato, l'assolutismo lucidamente fanatico del sedicente – e purtroppo anche seducente, per molti – Stato islamico; dall'altro, il meraviglioso esempio della Repubblica di Tunisia, che ha cominciato brillantemente il faticoso cammino verso la piena democrazia. Come membro della nostra delegazione durante le sue elezioni legislative e presidenziali posso testimoniarlo con i mei occhi. Ecco perché spero che questo Parlamento possa tributare un omaggio al grande sforzo, al grande entusiasmo del popolo tunisino.

Queste sono le due vie che si profilano all'orizzonte. Rimanere nello status quo oggi è impossibile. Quale di questi modelli prevarrà nella società palestinese dipenderà anche dal nostro coraggio di oggi, dalla nostra coerenza negli anni a venire.


  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτή την περίοδο ορισμένα κοινοβούλια ευρωπαϊκών χωρών παίρνουν αποφάσεις για αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους. Το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας υποστηρίζει το δίκαιο αίτημα του παλαιστινιακού λαού για αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους ως κράτους μέλους του ΟΗΕ και για την αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους από την κυβέρνηση και το κοινοβούλιο της χώρας μας. Θέση του ΚΚΕ είναι ότι πρέπει να δυναμώσει η πάλη για τον τερματισμό της ισραηλινής κατοχής και για τη δημιουργία ανεξάρτητου, βιώσιμου και κυρίαρχου παλαιστινιακού κράτους στα σύνορα του 1967, με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ. Πρέπει επίσης να γκρεμιστεί το απαράδεκτο τείχος, να απελευθερωθούν οι πολιτικοί κρατούμενοι, να τερματιστούν οι εποικισμοί και να αποχωρήσουν οι έποικοι με επιστροφή όλων των παλαιστινίων προσφύγων στις εστίες τους. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, σημειώνουμε ότι είναι τουλάχιστον αντιφατικό να υπάρχουν χώρες που αναγνωρίζουν το Παλαιστινιακό κράτος ενώ την ίδια στιγμή υποστηρίζουν τη λογική της εξίσωσης θύτη και θύματος και αναβαθμίζουν τις πολιτικές, οικονομικές, στρατιωτικές σχέσεις τους με το Ισραήλ, είτε στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είτε σε διμερές επίπεδο. Πρόκειται για μια στάση που οπλίζει το χέρι του Ισραήλ, που συνεχίζει τις επιθέσεις εναντίον των Παλαιστινίων, που διευρύνει τους εποικισμούς και καταδυναστεύει τον παλαιστινιακό λαό. Εκφράζουμε τη διεθνιστική αλληλεγγύη και τη συμπαράσταση του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος της Ελλάδας στο δίκαιο αγώνα του παλαιστινιακού λαού.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Domnule președinte, în primul rând aș vrea să condamn atacul terorist asupra sinagogii din Ierusalim de săptămâna trecută și să îmi exprim întreaga compasiune față de victime.

În al doilea rând, vreau să reamintesc că tema recunoașterii statului palestinian a fost readusă recent pe agendă în unele state membre, fie ca urmare a votării unor rezoluții în acest sens în parlamentele naționale (în Marea Britanie, Irlanda, Spania, în curând Franța și poate Danemarca), fie ca un demers al guvernului (cazul Suediei).

După cum am spus și în discuția procedurală de luni, Parlamentul European e divizat în această chestiune. Cred că avem o divergență fundamentală de opinii. Printre partizanii recunoașterii imediate a unui stat palestinian, opinia care prevalează este că acest act unilateral este de fapt un instrument pentru a reporni motorul gripat al negocierilor de pace privind conflictul din Orientul Apropiat. Apărătorii acestei viziuni susțin că Palestina ar avea astfel o poziție mai bună în negocieri. Această viziune este însă, în opinia mea, eronată, pentru că golește de conținut procesul negocierilor.

La ce bun să mai negociem, dacă unul dintre punctele asupra căruia trebuia să ne punem de acord, și anume existența unui stat palestinian, e deja decis? Nu cred că servim deloc, printr-o asemenea recunoaștere imediată, procesul de pace israelo-palestinian, nu facem, cred, decât să divizăm și să antagonizăm și mai mult cele două părți și să arătăm totodată că negocierile sunt inutile.

Pentru Grupul PPE, singura soluție pentru acest conflict este într-adevăr coexistența a două state, Israel și Palestina. Recunoașterea Palestinei e însă posibilă numai ca rezultat al unui proces de negociere între cele două părți, în cadrul unui proces de pace comprehensiv.


  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). - Domnule președinte, doamnă vicepreședintă/înalt reprezentant, doresc din start să vă mulțumesc pentru discursul dumneavoastră echilibrat, pragmatic și, da, atât de mult așteptat de Parlamentul European. Până acum, Uniunea noastră a lipsit de la această întâlnire cu istoria. Membrii Parlamentului European sunt îngrijorați de creșterea violenței, a actelor de terorism și condamnă recentele pierderi de vieți omenești de la Ierusalim și actele de terorism care au stat la baza acestora.

Grupul Socialiștilor și Democraților din Parlamentul European ia act de inițiativele unor parlamente naționale de a adopta moțiuni în favoarea recunoașterii statului palestinian și salută acest demers. Apreciez că, în contextul actual, atât de tensionat și complicat, negocierile de pace și recunoașterea trebuie să meargă mână în mână. Recunoașterea constituie o provocare și o oportunitate, îmi spunea recent un important lider israelian, dar și un pas în plus către o soluție. Obiectivul nostru trebuie să fie existența a două state egale, suverane, care să trăiască în pace și în respect cu regulile internaționale. Simpla recunoaștere nu este suficientă.

Consolidarea viabilității și statalității palestiniene cere o strategie comună a actorilor internaționali – Uniunea Europeană, Statele Unite și statele din regiune pe care dumneavoastră le-ați menționat – dar, de asemenea, ajutor financiar și logistic pentru ca acest lucru să se întâmple într-un orizont previzibil. Uniunea Europeană trebuie să devină rapid un actor major care, împreună cu Statele Unite și statele din regiune, să contribuie la relansarea procesului de pace și la finalizarea acestuia într-un orizont de timp rezonabil. Numai așa, printr-un acord durabil și recunoașterea reciprocă, inclusiv de către statele arabe, a statului israelian, putem garanta cadrul legitim de existență a celor două state și popoare.

Și încă o dată, vă încurajez, doamnă vicepreședintă: o strategie europeană pentru Orientul Apropiat.


  Bas Belder (ECR). - Mevrouw Mogherini, ik wil u een fundamenteel probleem voorleggen, als u mij toestaat. U sprak over de tweestatenoplossing. Dat veronderstelt niet, logischerwijze, een Palestijnse staat naast een Joodse staat.

In de jongste resolutie van Palestijnse zijde van 30 september 2014, sectie 3a, wordt er gepleit voor het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van de Palestijnen. Niets mis mee. Maar nu komt het: tot op de dag van vandaag weigert de Palestijnse Autoriteit datzelfde zelfbeschikkingsrecht in wederkerigheid toe te kennen aan het Joodse volk voor wat betreft de staat Israël! Dat helpt de vrede en een tweestatenoplossing niet vooruit. Zie het debat op het ogenblik in Israël.

Mijn vraag is: hoe staat u daarin? Vijf jaar geleden heb ik dat aan uw voorganger, mevrouw Ashton, gevraagd. Die zweeg in alle talen. Ik hoop dat u eerlijker bent en dat u die vraag ook eens een keer gaat stellen aan de Palestijnse zijde: "Hoe komt dat nu? Je vraagt iets en je geeft niets terug! Geen wederkerigheid.

Tenslotte, en dit moet mij echt van het hart, dit is het derde debat over het Midden-Oosten. Wij hebben een zomer achter de rug in de context van het Gaza-conflict vol antisemitisme ... [De Voorzitter ontneemt spreker het woord.]


  Pavel Telička (ALDE). - Mr President, I appreciate that the Vice-President came early. We were not used to that from her predecessor, and I hope she will keep it up.

Vice-President, you have been informed that we were unable to have a debate today with the draft resolution. In fact, although you were asking for input into your considerations, I am afraid you are seeing the reality, which is that this House is split.

I do appreciate what you said, which is that, while you do not have sufficient competences in this respect, you do see this as your business. I also appreciate that you said there should be an attempt at a common approach in this respect. I think that, as with any other area in the European Union, whenever there is a deadlock – deadlock in the Council, deadlock in the Parliament – the Commission, and in this case the Vice-President and the High Representative, has a unique opportunity to provide leadership. That is what we would be looking for.

You spoke of a draft – or input to a – common approach. We would very much welcome it if you came in the very near future with somewhat more detailed elements of this possible common approach. We would definitely be happy to debate it, and I am sure that this common approach can be based on what you have said. There will be no peace without a Palestinian State; there will be no Palestinian State without security for Israel.

I had more points to make today, but you have taken them out of my mouth, which is positive. Please take this as a warm invitation to come forward with a draft, which I am sure might also facilitate the debate in the European Parliament. I hope that in December we will manage to come with a draft resolution and that colleagues from other groups will consider the draft on the table.


  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η απόφαση ολοένα και περισσότερων κρατών να αναγνωρίσουν το Παλαιστινιακό κράτος στέλνει ένα θετικό μήνυμα στήριξης της ειρήνης και στήριξης του αγώνα των Παλαιστινίων ενάντια στην κατοχή. Δυστυχώς, οι πολιτικές ομάδες του ΕΛΚ και των Συντηρητικών δεν επέτρεψαν να σταλεί το ίδιο μήνυμα και από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, καθώς καταψήφισαν το δικαίωμα των ευρωβουλευτών να εκδώσουν ψήφισμα με το οποίο θα ζητούν την αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχει χρέος να στηρίξει τον αγώνα για τη δημιουργία ενός ανεξάρτητου, βιώσιμου και κυριάρχου Παλαιστινιακού κράτους, στα σύνορα του 1967, με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ, ενός κράτους για την πορεία του οποίου θα αποφασίζει ο λαός του, ενός κράτους που θα υπάρχει με ειρήνη και ασφάλεια δίπλα στο Ισραήλ. Η κατάσταση στην περιοχή γίνεται ολοένα και πιο επικίνδυνη. Η λογική στην οποία οικοδομήθηκε η Συμφωνία του Όσλο το 1993 έχει δυστυχώς τιναχθεί στον αέρα λόγω της επιθετικότητας του Ισραήλ και λόγω της επέκτασης των οικισμών των εποίκων. Έπειτα, πολλοί προσπαθούν να μας πείσουν ότι πρόκειται για μια θρησκευτική σύγκρουση μεταξύ Παλαιστινίων και Ισραηλινών. Η πραγματικότητα όμως αποδεικνύει άλλα. Συνεχίζεταιι η κατοχή των εδαφών που άρπαξε το Ισραήλ με πόλεμο, παραμένει άλυτο το πρόβλημα της επιστροφής των προσφύγων, αυξάνονται οι έποικοι, διατηρείται το τείχος που καταπατά τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, συνεχίζονται οι επιθέσεις του Ισραήλ στη Δυτική Όχθη και στη Λωρίδα της Γάζας που παραμένει ακόμη αποκλεισμένη. Η Ομάδα της GUE θα συνεχίσει να στηρίζει τις προσπάθειες για την αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους. Αναμένουμε όμως και από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο να στρατευθεί στην πορεία αλληλεγγύης υπέρ της πάλης του λαού της Παλαιστίνης για τερματισμό της κατοχής και για απελευθέρωση και να στηρίξει τις προσπάθειες για μόνιμη ειρήνη στην περιοχή.


  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). - Hr. formand! Situationen i Israel og Palæstina forværres dag for dag, og intet tyder på, at den israelske regering ønsker fred. Tværtimod! Den foreslår nu en decideret apartheidlov, og der bygges konstant flere bosættelser, nu med fuld fart også i palæstinensernes Østjerusalem.

Hidtil har hverken USA eller EU for alvor forsøgt at stoppe dette farlige vanvid, og nu er Jerusalem ved at udvikle sig til en krigszone. Og det er altså ikke kun på grund af de forfærdelige krænkelser af muslimernes helligdom Al-Aqsa på Tempelbjerget.

EU må og kan handle hurtigt og ordentligt.

Lad os her lytte til repræsentanterne for de 730 fremtrædende israelere, der er i Strasbourg i dag for at råbe os op. De opfordrer os til at anerkende Palæstina. En sådan anerkendelse vil give håb til palæstinenserne og kan afværge desperat vold. Anerkendelse er dertil en helt nødvendig betingelse for, at forhandlingerne mellem Israel og Palæstina kan foregå på fair vilkår og altså omsider komme rigtig i gang.

Anerkendelsen skal være nu! At gøre den betinget af fredsforhandlinger er at give Israel vetoret, hvilket er både dumt og meget umoralsk: at stille betingelser til de besatte i stedet for besætterne! Hvor ellers i verden er EU så uretfærdig? Ingen steder, forhåbentlig. Så stop også her! Respekten for menneskerettigheder og den internationale retsorden skal gælde overalt og da ikke mindst i et demokrati, som jeg stadigvæk anser Israel for at være.

Det lykkedes såkaldte venner af Israel i den konservative gruppe at udskyde afstemningen her i Parlamentet til næste måned. Men de er Israels dårligste venner. De sande venner er dem, der hjælper Israel til en værdig overlevelse. Den forudsætter en retfærdig tostatsløsning og sikrer fred i Israel med dets naboer, som det arabiske initiativ har tilbudt igen og igen, og den giver Palæstina håb og fremtid.

(Taleren accepterede at besvare et blåt kort-spørgsmål, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 162, stk. 8)


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Já bych měl jenom jednoduchou otázku. Z čeho plyne Vaše přesvědčení, že uznání Palestiny povede k trvalému míru?


  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – If we do not create equal conditions so that two equal partners are negotiating, there is no chance of getting real negotiations. I cannot guarantee anything, but I can guarantee to you that, if you do not recognise Palestine and give it a chance to act as a real partner, there will be no true negotiations, as we have seen from Israel not delivering up to now.


  Marcel de Graaff (NI). - Alweer bewijst de verschrikkelijke aanslag van vorige week op onschuldige, biddende burgers in de synagoge in Jeruzalem het meedogenloze, gewelddadige karakter van het terroristische regime van de Palestijnse Autoriteit.

Een Palestijnse Staat verschilt in niets van IS, het islamitisch kalifaat. Er is geen vrijheidsstrijd van Palestijnen. Er is alleen geweld door Fatah en Hamas uit naam van een barbaarse ideologie.

Wie een Palestijnse Staat wil erkennen, legitimeert terrorisme, legitimeert antisemitisme en legitimeert misdaden tegen de menselijkheid.

Wie denkt dat erkenning van een Palestijnse staat vrede in het Midden-Oosten dichterbij brengt, is ziende blind. Deze erkenning zal door Hamas en Fatah gevierd worden als een erkenning van hun claim op heel het Heilige Land, als een erkenning van hun antisemitische doel om alle Joden in Israël uit te moorden.

Laat al die zogenaamde Palestijnen uit Gaza, Judea, Samaria terugkeren naar hun thuisland Jordanië. Wie een Palestijnse Staat wil erkennen, ontmaskert zichzelf als antisemiet.

Ik roep de Europese Commissie op om alle financiële steun van de EU aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit onmiddellijk te stoppen, om erkenning van een Palestijnse Staat met kracht te veroordelen en om het recht van het Joodse volk om te bidden op de Tempelberg volmondig te erkennen.


  Fulvio Martusciello (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi: Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, Naftali Fraenkel, Muhammad Hussein: quattro ragazzi strappati alla vita per un estremismo religioso che ha portato le due parti a non parlarsi più. Sembra non esserci davvero spazio per una trasformazione del pensiero che porti le due parti a riconoscersi, ad avvicinarsi, unico presupposto per un reale percorso che conduca alla pace, all'accettazione dell'altro come vicino – magari non il più simpatico possibile – senza arrivare a realizzare il desiderio profondo di annientarlo.

In questo quadro, con questi tempi, ci è arrivata una proposta – improvvisamente, senza dibattito – e ci siamo ritrovati a dover improvvisamente discutere di una mozione sul riconoscimento dello Stato di Palestina. Una mozione che di fatto non aiuta il processo di pace perché non stiamo sviluppando un dibattito vero, alto, non stiamo dicendo alla Palestina e ad Israele quali sono i reciproci diritti e reciproci doveri. Ma improvvisamente il Parlamento si è ritrovato con questo argomento e ben ha fatto la Conferenza dei capigruppo a posticipare la discussione. E probabilmente sarebbe opportuno che la posticipassimo ancora, che arrivassimo al voto finale su questa mozione quando saremo pienamente consapevoli dei risultati concreti, di ciò che significa il riconoscimento di uno Stato, che non è soltanto il riconoscimento di diritti ma anche e soprattutto il riconoscimento di doveri.

E allora il Parlamento europeo si prenda tutto il tempo che serve; ogni parlamentare si informi, costruisca le proprie convinzioni. Viva l'esperienza come ce l'ha raccontata il Commissario Mogherini. Si faccia una sua convinzione e poi torneremo qui a dare la nostra indicazione. Non abbiamo nessuna necessità di correre facendo probabilmente rallentare il processo di pace.


  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). - Herr talman! Som svensk är jag ju stolt över att min regering har erkänt staten Palestina. Men Sverige är verkligen inte först, bara en länk i en lång kedja, och den kedjan måste bli längre och starkare.

Med ett erkännande från EU av staten Palestina öppnar vi också the window of opportunity som nu finns där plötsligt framför våra ögon. Ett erkännande skulle bidra till att Israel och Palestina kan leva sida vid sida i fredlig samexistens. Ett fredsavtal och en tvåstatslösning skulle underlättas om parterna i dessa förhandlingar var mindre ojämlika.

De folkrättsliga kriterierna för ett erkännande av staten Palestina är uppfyllda. Världssamfundet har bedömt att Palestina är statsdugligt. Att inte erkänna Palestina med hänvisning till den israeliska ockupationen skulle stå i strid med den folkrättsliga principen om ingen rätt ur en orätt.

EU:s medlemsstater bekräftade 2009 sin beredskap att erkänna staten Palestina när det är lämpligt. Frågan är då: När är det lämpligt? Igår eller idag eller mycket snart? Mot bakgrund av den mycket svåra situationen i regionen och den höga konfliktnivån och i ljuset av den folkrättsliga analysen finns ingen anledning till onödigt dröjsmål. Vi bör fatta beslut om erkännande.

(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen).


  Lars Adaktusson (PPE), fråga (“blått kort”). – Herr talman! Jag vill fråga Marita Ulvskog mot bakgrund av att vi här i parlamentet och i regeringsinstitutioner ofta talar om vikten av en gemensam kraftfull europeisk utrikespolitik. Mot bakgrund av att vi säger att det endast är genom att vi uppträder gemensamt som vi kan påverka utrikespolitiken globalt så vill jag fråga Marita Ulvskog – med tanke också på att svenska socialdemokrater vid flera tillfällen har sagt sig stå bakom denna målsättning – frågan gäller alltså: På vilket sätt överensstämmer agerandet nu? Det unilaterala agerandet med målsättningen att Europa ska tala med en röst.


  President. - Colleague, I am very sorry, but the blue-card system is there to ask a question, not to make a speech and then ask a question. Please stick to that.


  Marita Ulvskog (S&D), svar (“blått kort”). – Herr talman! Jag är tacksam över att talmannen instruerar herr Adaktusson om hur det ska gå till. Mitt svar till Adaktusson är att det naturligtvis är varje land, varje medlemsstat, som bestämmer om ett erkännande. Men en sådan kraftfull markering som vi skulle göra från parlamentet i denna fråga – att visa att vi är eniga – skulle vara av väldigt stor betydelse för Palestina, för Israel och för den höga representanten, som har gjort ett utmärkt intryck här om var hon står och hur hon kommer att sköta denna fråga framöver. Jag litar fullt och fast på den höga representanten.


  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). - Mevrouw de vicevoorzitter, u heeft het gezegd: er is een gebrek aan politiek perspectief. Het gevolg van die frustratie is dat de druk in verschillende lidstaten inderdaad toeneemt om over te gaan tot een eenzijdige erkenning van Palestina. Ook in mijn eigen lidstaat, België, woedt die discussie.

Voor ons is het duidelijk, het recht op zelfbeschikking van de volkeren geldt ook voor Palestina. Dat principe is een belangrijk principe voor mijn partij en ook voor mijzelf als Vlaming. Maar de enige weg daar naartoe is die van de politiek en die van de diplomatie. En de erkenning zonder een onderhandeld vredesakkoord zal verdere gesprekken voor een evenwichtige tweestatenoplossing die de veiligheid garandeert van Israëlische én Palestijnse burgers, ondermijnen.

U heeft gezegd: de EU kan de eerste politieke speler zijn om de dialoog op gang te brengen. Wel, wij willen u aanmoedigen om inderdaad niet langer genoegen te nemen met de rol van geldschieter, maar een echte actor te zijn op politiek, humanitair en veiligheidsvlak.


  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, merci également à Madame la Vice-présidente pour la clarté et aussi l'empathie partagée de vos propos préliminaires. Cela nous change un peu.

Depuis le temps que nous débattons de cette question, l'opposition et nos divergences sont évidemment connues ici. Pourtant, on l'entend bien dans ce débat, il est bon nombre de constats et de sentiments qu'en réalité nous partageons, à commencer par une évidence qui a été répétée: le statu quo n'est pas une option. De facto, pourtant, les négociations sont à l'arrêt, une situation qui ne cesse évidemment d'engendrer des frustrations et conduit à un durcissement des postures, comme cette loi sur le caractère juif de l'État d'Israël, contreproductive même aux yeux du président, comme la politique d'implantation qui se poursuit mais aussi comme cette violence, encore et toujours, celle du Fatah qui ne contrôle pas ses factions armées, celle des milices du Hamas et celle des attentats, dont celui de Jérusalem.

Quelque chose doit bouger, nous sommes d'accord sur ce point, mais pas sur ceci, en tout cas pas suivant ce calendrier. Entendons-nous bien, c'est le calendrier que je n'accepte pas, ni cette reconnaissance unilatérale et inconditionnelle qui, immanquablement, gèlera toute capacité des Palestiniens à faire ensuite des compromis, ni cette reconnaissance, aujourd'hui, d'un État qui n'en est pas un. Deux gouvernements, deux entités dont l'une est un mouvement terroriste et reconnu comme tel; comment allons-nous contourner cette réalité-là et comment accepter aussi que nous accordions, aujourd'hui, ce statut à ceux-là mêmes qui refusent de reconnaître l'État d'Israël?

Je suis convaincue, Madame Mogherini, qu'il n'y a pas d'alternative. Notre rôle est bien de ramener les partenaires de la paix à la table des négociations mais pas de brandir des étendards qui compromettraient l'avenir.


  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, je vous remercie pour vos propos et je salue le courage dont vous faites preuve.

Le vote d'une résolution claire de notre Parlement reconnaissant l'État palestinien serait un acte fort, un acte pour la paix et la justice. Israël dispose de son État et sa sécurité doit évidemment être garantie. Mais ce qu'il manque aujourd'hui, c'est un État pour le peuple palestinien. Le débat que nous avons aujourd'hui provient des impasses constatées du processus d'Oslo et, donc, de la nécessité que nous avons désormais de nous y prendre autrement et de nous appuyer sur le droit international, à savoir la résolution 242 du 29 novembre 1967 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, qui reconnaît le territoire de l'État palestinien avec sa capitale, Jérusalem-Est, et la résolution 1860 du 8 janvier 2009, qui le confirme. Seuls les dirigeants israéliens ne reconnaissent pas ce droit alors que contrairement à ce qui vient d'être dit, l'OLP et l'Autorité palestinienne reconnaissent et ont reconnu l'État d'Israël.

Dès lors que la Palestine deviendrait membre de l'Assemblée générale de l'Organisation des Nations unies, elle serait traitée sur un pied d'égalité, du point de vue juridique, dans la négociation que l'Union européenne, les États-Unis et la Ligue arabe devraient accompagner.

Par-delà nos différences dans ce Parlement, produisons cet acte, votons une telle résolution, mettons-nous du côté des 137 États qui ont déjà reconnu l'État palestinien! C'est l'intérêt aussi du peuple israélien dont les mouvements citoyens, des mouvements de femmes, réclament cet État.

Retrouvons notre rôle d'acteur pour la paix et la sécurité au Proche-Orient

(L'orateur accepte de réponde à une question "carte bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


  Pavel Svoboda (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Já bych se chtěl zeptat, když mluvil pan Le Hyaric o příspěvku k míru uznáním palestinského státu, zda je přesvědčen, že takový akt uznání by vedl k zastavení střílení raket z civilních objektů z palestinského území na Izrael, že by vedl k zastavení budování teroristických tunelů směrem k Izraeli atd.?


  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), réponse "carton bleu". – Cher collègue, ce sont toujours les mêmes questions en noir ou en blanc.

Je suis contre les fusées dont vous parlez mais ceux qui sont occupés aujourd'hui, ce sont les Palestiniens. Ceux à qui on prend la terre, l'eau et les territoires, ce sont les Palestiniens. Ceux à qui on envoie les armes les plus sophistiquées du monde sur la tête, ce sont les Palestiniens. Par conséquent, arrêtons en permanence de chercher des prétextes pour ne pas avancer sur la voie de la paix.

Ce que je propose, c'est que, ici, nous prenions, ensemble par-delà nos différences, une initiative politique symbolique, certes, mais qui conforterait la position de Mme la haute représentante, de telle sorte qu'on reconnaisse enfin cet État. Pourquoi certains États sont-ils reconnus et pas celui-là? C'est la question que je pose.


  Bodil Ceballos (Verts/ALE). - Herr talman! Jag är också stolt över att Sverige erkänt Palestina och att det har gett ringar på vattnet. Det var vår tanke. Jag är övertygad om att vi bara kan komma vidare i fredsprocessen om möjligheten finns att nå en tvåstatslösning innan det är för sent. Med starka påtryckningar på den israeliska regeringen. Ett brett erkännande av många EU-stater är en sån påtryckning.

Men Israel är inte bara sin regering. Det finns en israelisk opposition som också ber oss att erkänna Palestina. Det är fredsrörelsen förstås, men det är också före detta israeliska ambassadörer, rättschefer, forskare, generaldirektörer etc. Vi bör lyssna också på dem.

Och dem som ännu inte har bestämt sig för om de vill att vi ska rösta för ett erkännande eller inte, skulle jag vilja uppmana att faktiskt resa till Palestina och Israel. Att besöka Hebron tillsammans med organisationen Breaking the silence, som är israeliska soldater som berättar hur verkligheten är. Det är en upplevelse som man inte kommer att glömma.


  Udo Voigt (NI). - Herr Präsident, Frau Mogherini, Frau Kommissarin! Ich habe mich über die erfrischenden Worte, die Sie nach Ihrer Reise nach Gaza hier in diesem Parlament kundgetan haben, gefreut und auch darüber, dass Sie endlich einmal damit beginnen, alte Strukturen einer einseitigen Pro-Israel-Politik aufzubrechen, denn diese hat in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten keinen Frieden hervorgebracht.

Nachdem also 2012 in der Vollversammlung der Vereinten Nationen 193 von 195 Staaten für eine Anerkennung die Tür geöffnet haben, nachdem jetzt in Ländern Europas wie Spanien, Großbritannien, Schweden und Irland eindeutig Position bezogen worden ist, dass man diesen Status quo überwinden will, dass demnächst auch Belgien, Frankreich und Dänemark nachkommen, ist es an der Zeit, dass hier die Staatengemeinschaft Europas ein Zeichen setzt, um neue Verhandlungen möglich zu machen.

Das Volk der Palästinenser hat dafür mit Besetzung, Teilung, Zerstörung von Eigentum und Infrastruktur, Vertreibung und einem hohen Blutzoll bezahlen müssen. Sie, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, haben im Dezember mit der Abstimmung über die Entschließung darüber zu entscheiden, ob die Völker- und Menschenrechtsverletzungen des Staates Israel weiter sanktioniert werden oder ob dieses Unrecht Palästina – mit Ihrem Votum für eine Anerkennung Palästinas – wieder zu seinem Recht verhilft.


  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, este debate, como otros que sobre este tema están teniendo lugar estos días en varios Parlamentos de varios Estados miembros, me parece una muestra del nivel de impaciencia y de inquietud que está provocando el atasco, el bloqueo del proceso de paz.

Son muchos los años de desencuentros y conflictos; son muchas las iniciativas, muchos los esfuerzos de mediación y negociación, el último y muy intenso del Secretario de Estado Kerry; son muchos los actos de violencia y enfrentamientos, por ejemplo, lo ocurrido en Gaza este verano; y son muchos los odiosos atentados terroristas, como el de la semana pasada en la sinagoga de Jerusalén.

Después de todos estos largos y violentos años estamos ante una situación de hartazgo y de preocupación, sin un horizonte de una solución cercana. Es urgente impulsar un proceso de paz genuino, con el que las partes estén realmente comprometidas. Hay que evitar actos unilaterales que obstaculicen este proceso, por ejemplo, los asentamientos — que toda la comunidad internacional rechaza—. El objetivo de las negociaciones tiene que ser la solución de los dos Estados viviendo en paz, seguridad y prosperidad.

Hoy, aquí, como en otros Parlamentos —entre otros, recientemente, el español— debatimos el reconocimiento de Palestina. Sobre este tema, lo que quiero en este foro es insistir en que haya una coordinación europea rigurosa que demuestre que existe una auténtica política exterior europea. No debiéramos repetir lo que sucedió, por ejemplo, en la Unesco.

Señorías, a este Parlamento no le compete reconocer Estados, obviamente, pero sí declarar que es urgente la puesta en marcha de unas negociaciones de paz serias y que la Unión Europea se involucre en ellas. En este sentido, celebro el compromiso que nos ha anunciado la señora Mogherini y también confío en una buena coordinación con la potencia indispensable en este punto, que son los Estados Unidos.

Vivimos momentos muy difíciles en la región, ya que el desafío del ISIS está planteando enormes problemas en Siria y en Irak. Unas negociaciones francas, sólidas, genuinas entre israelíes y palestinos crearán un espacio de diálogo y una esperanza de paz en todo Oriente Medio, que en estos momentos está sumergido en un mar de violencia, intolerancia y frustración.


  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, tout d'abord, je souhaiterais venir en écho à votre intervention liminaire et vous indiquer quels sont les points importants que notre résolution devra comporter.

Tout d'abord, comme vous l'avez dit, il s'agit de mettre en exergue le rôle important de l'Union européenne, c'est-à-dire être un acteur majeur de choix dans la région. Donc, il va falloir que nous indiquions clairement notre volonté de reconnaissance de l'État de la Palestine afin de contribuer à la coexistence de deux États: l'État de la Palestine et l'État d'Israël. Il y aura nécessairement aussi des clarifications à apporter sur les limites territoriales, la colonisation, le statut de la bande de Gaza, Jérusalem, capitale des deux États. Il faudra aussi que nous indiquions que nous ne sommes pas seuls dans cette volonté et cette recherche de la paix, nous avons avec nous l'Égypte, la Jordanie, l'Arabie Saoudite, les États-Unis, la Ligue arabe – comme vous l'avez aussi précisé – et, évidemment, nous devons faire en sorte de demander au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies de prendre en main cette volonté et cette recherche.

Pourquoi reconnaître l'État de la Palestine? Il y a des lieux où les symboles comptent plus que d'autres, et je crois que le Parlement européen fait partie de ces lieux. Notre devoir politique est de faire aboutir la paix au Proche-Orient et, donc, la coexistence de ces deux États.

Pour conclure, je voudrais simplement rappeler cette belle phrase de Mahmoud Abbas: "Il n'y a pas un État de trop au Proche-Orient, mais il en manque un".


  Jan Zahradil (ECR). - Jednak se musím vyjádřit k tomu, že o tomto tématu na půdě Evropského parlamentu vůbec debatujeme. Evropský parlament, bohužel, říkám s lítostí, se opět vlamuje do věcí, do kterých mu, upřímně řečeno, nic není.

V tak delikátním tématu, jako je toto, by každý stát měl mít právo si stanovit vlastní linii, jednat podle vlastních národních zájmů a Evropský parlament nemá určovat ani doporučovat v tomto ohledu žádné řešení. Jde tím přes svoje vlastní pravomoce a jedině tím zkomplikuje situaci.

Za druhé, k tématu samotnému, musí tady zaznít, že část palestinské reprezentace postupuje cestou násilí a terorismu, že se netají tím, že chce zničit Stát Izrael, a to je prostě nepřijatelné.

Já tady chci slyšet, že Evropská unie tyto lidi podporovat nebude, že jim nebude poskytovat žádné finanční prostředky a že nepodnikne žádné kroky k tomu, aby v nich vytvářela falešné naděje. To si myslím, že je důležitější a že to má být obsahem této naší debaty.


  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Spoštovani predsednik, spoštovana visoka predstavnica, najprej bi se rad vam zahvalil za iskren, odprt in rekel bi tudi zelo luciden nastop, tudi dovolj samozavesten. Jaz bi si želel, da ostanete takšni ves čas svojega mandata.

Tudi bi rad vas podprl, ko ste omenili iniciativo arabskih držav, mirovno iniciativo. Mislim, da se bomo morali vrniti k temu dokumentu kot eni izmed osnov in okvirju za mirno rešitev problema.

Mi smo včeraj tukaj v Evropskem parlamentu odložili zavzemanje stališča do priznanja palestinske države. Rekel bi, da je več kot očitno, da politiki zaostajamo za svojo javnostjo in za volivci, ki si na Bližnjem vzhodu želijo hitrejšega miru, hitrejše rešitve, trajne rešitve varnosti, tako za Izrael kot za njegove arabske sosede, tako tudi za nas.

Status quo je nesprejemljiv, vodi v stopnjevanje nasilja, hrabri ošabnost izraelske vlade in ponižanje Palestincev. Priznanje palestinske države v tem trenutku mogoče ni edina, morda tudi ne optimalna poteza, toda pomagala bo ustvariti dinamiko procesa, ki zdaj stoji. Če bodo Izrael in Palestinci to želeli, bo ta dinamika pripeljala do rešitve.

Na koncu bi vas rad še obvestil, da bo v petek tudi slovenski parlament razpravljal o priznanju Palestine in jaz osebno lahko rečem, da sem glede tega optimist, da pričakujem, da bo Slovenija šla po tej poti.


  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). - Senhora Mogherini, quero antes de mais agradecer-lhe a sua presença aqui e a proposta que faz. Uma proposta para ser percebida tem que ser clara e simples, e a sua foi muito clara e foi muito simples: um sistema de dois Estados, fronteiras de 1967 e com Jerusalém como capital. Não é nenhuma inovação, é a proposta das Nações Unidas, e andamos a discutir há muito tempo, mas quero agradecer-lhe essa sua proposta.

De todas as formas, o reconhecimento de um Estado implica ter que ter outros elementos, desde logo acabar com a ocupação. A União Europeia não reconhece os territórios ocupados, tem que verdadeiramente não reconhecê-los, e não continuar a agir como se eles não existissem. Implica além disso a autodeterminação, implica lutar para que não se vendam armas ao Estado opressor. É preciso trabalhar em todas as dimensões.

Eu aplaudo a sua iniciativa, Sra. Mogherini, mas digo-lhe, sem paternalismos: Continua a lutar por isso. Porque senão é como diria o poeta: a verdade tem duas caras e a neve afinal é preta.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to add my own congratulations to the High Representative’s very lucid opening remarks. This century-old tragedy has its roots in empire. My own country, Scotland – and indeed the UK – has a bounden moral duty of obligation to the peoples of this region. Statehood has long been promised, and this is not a new discussion. Going right the way back to 1917, Balfour, a Scotsman, contemplated two states in the Balfour Declaration. The UK’s own White Paper of 1939 read ‘the objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State’. In Scotland today we support recognition, government and parliament, alongside many other countries. To those that say that negotiations with Israel should not be circumvented and that now is not the right time, I say: no, enough. That line has been used to give Israel a veto over the whole process for too long. We need to change tack, colleagues. There is no peace process worth the name. Israel’s policies account for the lion’s share of that failure, alongside our own hypocrisy and inaction. We must recognise Palestine urgently.


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, en droit international, un État, c'est une population, un territoire, un gouvernement et la reconnaissance juridique qui le sacralise et le constate.

Contre la reconnaissance d'un tel État pour le peuple palestinien, un certain nombre de mes éminents collègues ont déclaré qu'on pourrait peut-être envisager de restituer la Palestine à la Jordanie. Mais le Royaume hachémite de Jordanie a abandonné ses droits sur la Cisjordanie depuis longtemps. Dans ces conditions, que faire?

Peut-on se satisfaire du statu quo? J'ai entendu un certain nombre de nos collègues qui disent que la reconnaissance de l'État palestinien ne suffira pas à restaurer la paix. C'est évident, mais le maintien du statu quo suffira-t-il à restaurer la paix? Je suis assez étonné d'ailleurs, car j'ai entendu des collègues tchèques, polonais, de pays qui, pendant très longtemps, ont été occupés par d'autres, et de façon extraordinairement douloureuse souvent, et ont eu beaucoup de mal à faire reconnaître leur indépendance et leur souveraineté mais qui se montrent très hostiles à la reconnaissance de la même indépendance quand il s'agit du peuple palestinien.

On m'objectera bien sûr le terrorisme, tout à fait condamnable, mais il est évident que le terrorisme se nourrit du désespoir. On m'objectera l'absence de reconnaissance d'Israël par les Palestiniens mais, que je sache, cette reconnaissance a eu lieu en 1993 et même le Hamas s'est rangé récemment sous la bannière du gouvernement de M. Mahmoud Abbas.

Je crains, surtout pour Israël, qu'il ne soit trop tard. Si Israël ne négocie pas maintenant, si on n'a pas voulu négocier avec le gouvernement palestinien, on a le Hamas. Si on ne négocie pas avec le Hamas, on aura les djihadistes.


  Michèle Alliot-Marie (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, je crois que nous devons garder à l'esprit deux faits. Premièrement, depuis des décennies, le conflit entre Israël et la Palestine sert de prétexte au terrorisme et de terreau à l'intégrisme. Deuxièmement, dans les deux camps, les victimes sont essentiellement des civils.

Les bases d'une solution sont bien connues – vous les avez rappelées: deux États dans les frontières de 1967, Jérusalem comme capitale des deux États et la sécurité d'Israël garantie. Aujourd'hui, il faut agir. Les fenêtres d'opportunité pour une solution globale et durable s'amenuisent à chaque poussée de violence, y compris la dernière – cet attentat dans une synagogue –, et conduisent à la radicalisation d'un côté comme de l'autre.

Mon expérience personnelle et les contacts que j'ai pu avoir avec les responsables des deux peuples me font dire qu'une solution est possible sur le fond et que le problème majeur est un problème de confiance réciproque ou plutôt d'absence de confiance réciproque entre les intéressés, notamment pour la mise en œuvre d'une solution éventuelle. Je pense que dans ce domaine, la communauté internationale et l'Europe, en particulier, ont l'une et l'autre leur rôle à jouer. Le Parlement européen n'a aucune compétence pour la reconnaissance d'un État, mais il faut agir et vous devez agir, nous comptons sur vous pour cela.

Madame Mogherini, quelles initiatives concrètes envisagez-vous et dans quels délais pensez-vous les prendre auprès des autorités à la fois israéliennes et palestiniennes ainsi qu'auprès des responsables des États arabes dont vous avez parlé, lesquels peuvent être, je pense, une des clefs de la solution, en garantissant le respect des engagements qui seront pris?


  Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (S&D). - Señor Presidente, gracias, señora Mogherini, por su trabajo y por su compromiso. Yo estoy muy orgullosa de que España haya decidido por una casi unanimidad de la Cámara reconocer al Estado palestino. Porque habrán escuchado ustedes muchas veces, y lo habrán dicho ustedes también: Europa va despacio, Europa no se hace presente como un actor político en la región. Yo creo que ya vamos tarde. Vamos tarde para encontrar una solución que sea decente y justa. Y hay que recordar en este debate que hay un ocupante, ¿verdad? Hay un ocupante y hay un pueblo ocupado. Y el ocupante tiene responsabilidades sobre la seguridad y la vida de aquellos cuyo territorio ocupa.

Estoy de acuerdo con el consenso. Creo que es muy importante para esta cuestión. Pero el consenso no puede ser una excusa para seguir haciendo nada, para seguir aquí parados. Necesitamos movernos. Necesitamos hacernos presentes. Y, además, Palestina ya es un Estado. Es un Estado con un territorio, con un Gobierno, con un Parlamento. Es un Estado que es hora de que todos reconozcamos ya.


  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Zabieram głos jako poseł z kraju, który kiedyś był także ojczyzną wielu milionów Żydów. Warszawa – skąd zostałem wybrany – była największym skupiskiem Żydów w Europie przed wojną. Niestety tę wielowiekową symbiozę Polaków i Żydów przerwała dokonana przez Niemców zbrodnia holokaustu – dokonana głównie na polskiej ziemi. Dziś Polska jest także wielkim cmentarzem Żydów. I właśnie dlatego bezpieczeństwo narodu żydowskiego jest dla nas tak ważne. Sądzę, że przedwczesne jednostronne uznanie państwa palestyńskiego nie służy dobrze temu bezpieczeństwu. Natomiast jest oczywiste, że trzeba wspierać dalszy dialog izraelsko-palestyński. Dziękuję.


  Σοφία Σακοράφα (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η άτολμη και υπονομευτική πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης επισφραγίστηκε από τα τελευταία τραγικά γεγονότα στη Γάζα. Σήμερα, η Ένωση φαίνεται να προχωρεί σε ένα ουσιαστικό βήμα αν και καθυστερημένο κατά 60 χρόνια περίπου. Η αναγνώριση του Παλαιστινιακού κράτους δημιουργεί νέο καθεστώς και υποχρεωτικές δεσμεύσεις για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. ƒÆƒ¿ ƒÊƒÇƒÉάƒÊƒÃ ƒÁƒÇƒ¿ ƒÂƒÇƒ¿ƒÎƒÏƒ¿ƒÁƒÊƒ¿ƒÑƒÃύƒÐƒÃƒÇς ƒ§ƒÐƒÏƒ¿ήƒÉ - ƒ®ƒ¿ƒÉƒ¿ƒÇƒÐƒÑίƒËƒÅς, ƒÁƒËƒÖƒÏίƒÄƒÍƒÒƒÊƒÃ όƒÑƒÇ ƒ¿ƒËƒ¿ƒÓƒÃƒÏόƒÊƒ¿ƒÐƒÑƒÃ ƒÐƒÃ ƒÂƒÇƒ¿ƒÎƒÏƒ¿ƒÁƒÊƒ¿ƒÑƒÃύƒÐƒÃƒÇς ƒÊƒÃƒÑƒ¿ƒÌύ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÑƒ¿ƒÈƒÑƒÅƒÑή ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÑƒÃƒÔόƒÊƒÃƒËƒÍƒÒ ƒÈƒÏάƒÑƒÍƒÒς. ƒÆƒ¿ ƒÊƒÇƒÉάƒÊƒÃ ƒÁƒÇƒ¿ «ƒÐƒÒƒÁƒÈƒÏƒÍύƒÐƒÃƒÇς», ƒÁƒËƒÖƒÏίƒÄƒÍƒÒƒÊƒÃ όƒÑƒÇ ƒ¿ƒËƒ¿ƒÓƒÃƒÏόƒÊƒ¿ƒÐƒÑƒÃ ƒÐƒÃ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÑƒÍƒÔƒÇƒÈό ƒÐƒÑƒÏƒ¿ƒÑό ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒ¿ƒÎƒÃƒÉƒÃƒÒƒÆƒÃƒÏƒÖƒÑƒÇƒÈό ƒÈίƒËƒÅƒÊƒ¿. ƒÆƒ¿ ƒÊƒÇƒÉάƒÊƒÃ ƒÁƒÇƒ¿ ƒÂƒÇƒÃƒÆƒËƒÃίς ƒÆƒÃƒÐƒÊƒÍύς ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒÐƒÒƒËƒÆήƒÈƒÃς, ƒ¿ƒËƒ¿ƒÁƒËƒÖƒÏίƒÄƒÍƒÒƒÊƒÃ ƒÑƒÍ ƒÎƒÏƒÍƒËόƒÊƒÇƒÍ ƒÑƒÍƒÒ ƒ®ƒ¿ƒÉƒ¿ƒÇƒÐƒÑƒÇƒËƒÇƒ¿ƒÈƒÍύ ƒÈƒÏάƒÑƒÍƒÒς ƒËƒ¿ ƒÎƒÏƒÍƒÐƒÓƒÃύƒÁƒÃƒÇ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒËƒ¿ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÑƒ¿ƒÁƒÁέƒÉƒÉƒÃƒÇ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÑƒ¿ƒÎάƒÑƒÅƒÐƒÅ ƒ¿ƒËƒÆƒÏώƒÎƒÇƒËƒÖƒË ƒÂƒÇƒÈƒ¿ƒÇƒÖƒÊάƒÑƒÖƒË ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒÃƒÁƒÈƒÉήƒÊƒ¿ƒÑƒ¿ ƒÎƒÍƒÉέƒÊƒÍƒÒ. ƒÐƒÑƒÃƒÏήƒÐƒ¿ƒÊƒÃ ƒ¿ƒÎό ƒÑƒÍƒË ƒ®ƒ¿ƒÉƒ¿ƒÇƒÐƒÑƒÇƒËƒÇƒ¿ƒÈό ƒÉƒ¿ό ƒÊƒÃ ƒÑƒÅ ƒÐƒÑάƒÐƒÅ ƒÊƒ¿ς ƒÊƒÇƒ¿ ƒÎƒÏƒ¿ƒÁƒÊƒ¿ƒÑƒÇƒÈή ƒÎƒÏƒÍƒÍƒÎƒÑƒÇƒÈή ƒÁƒÇƒ¿ ƒÂƒÇƒÈό ƒÑƒÍƒÒ ƒÈƒÏάƒÑƒÍς. ƒÊƒÃ ƒÑƒÅ ƒÐƒÑάƒÐƒÅ ƒÊƒ¿ς ƒÒƒÎƒÍƒËƒÍƒÊƒÃύƒÐƒ¿ƒÊƒÃ ƒÑƒÅƒË ƒÃƒÇƒÏήƒËƒÅ ƒÐƒÑƒÅƒË ƒÎƒÃƒÏƒÇƒÍƒÔή. ƒ¨ƒÒƒÏίƒÃς ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒÈύƒÏƒÇƒÍƒÇ ƒÐƒÒƒËάƒÂƒÃƒÉƒÓƒÍƒÇ, ƒÌƒÃƒÈƒÇƒËήƒÐƒ¿ƒÊƒÃ έƒËƒ¿ ƒÐƒÅƒÊƒ¿ƒËƒÑƒÇƒÈό ƒÀήƒÊƒ¿. ƒŸς ƒÊƒÅƒË ƒÑƒÍ ƒ¿ƒÈƒÏƒÖƒÑƒÅƒÏƒÇάƒÐƒÍƒÒƒÊƒÃ ƒÈƒ¿ƒÇ ƒ¿ς ƒÊƒÅƒË ƒÈάƒËƒÍƒÒƒÊƒÃ ƒÎίƒÐƒÖ.


  Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, lundi soir, vous avez décidé de reporter le vote d'une résolution reconnaissant l'État palestinien. Est-ce bien sérieux? Est-il encore temps d'hésiter quand chaque jour qui passe réduit un peu plus la possibilité d'un État palestinien. De quoi avez-vous peur?

Il y a une semaine, j'étais à l'ONU pour dire combien nous sommes conscients que, sur le chemin de la paix, la reconnaissance de la Palestine est la première urgence à concrétiser. La communauté internationale nous regarde et nous dit à quel point nous, parlementaires, avons un rôle à jouer pour pousser les chefs d'État à rouvrir le dialogue. Cent trente-cinq États, les parlements anglais, irlandais, espagnol, suédois et, peut-être demain, français franchissent le pas. Et nous alors? Palestiniens et Israéliens continuent d'avoir besoin de notre appui.

Montrons que nous sommes capables de briser les murs! La solution à deux États n'a que trop tardé. Dans cet hémicycle, reconnaissons qu'il n'y a pas un État en trop au Proche-Orient mais qu'il en manque un! Ayons le courage de reconnaître l'État de Palestine! Montrons que, par notre volonté politique, une paix juste et durable est possible!


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Γενική Συνέλευση του ΟΗΕ το 2012 ενέκρινε την αναβάθμιση της Παλαιστινιακής Αρχής σε κράτος με την ιδιότητα του Παρατηρητή. Αυτή η αναβάθμιση του διεθνούς καθεστώτος της Παλαιστίνης από οντότητα σε κράτος μη μέλος του ΟΗΕ, καθεστώς ανάλογο με εκείνο του Βατικανού, έδωσε στην Παλαιστίνη μια ληξιαρχική πράξης γέννησης. Τα τελευταία δύο χρόνια όμως, το μόνο που έχουμε παρατηρήσει είναι αύξηση της επιθετικότητας του Ισραήλ, χιλιάδες δε επιδρομές και σφαγές αμάχων, συνέχιση της κατοχής στα παλαιστινιακά εδάφη και συνέχιση του εποικισμού αυτών. Δεν υπάρχει καμία αμφιβολία ότι το δίκαιο είναι με τη μεριά των Παλαιστινίων, οι οποίοι παλεύουν, αν και όχι πάντα με τους πιο πλέον δόκιμους τρόπους, για να αποκτήσουν το δικαίωμα για μια δική τους πατρίδα, ακόμη και αν αυτή έχει σήμερα συρρικνωθεί στο 22% της αρχικής της έκτασης. Πολλοί ειδικοί έχουν προσπαθήσει όλο αυτό το διάστημα να βρουν λύσεις ώστε να σταματήσει κάποια στιγμή το μακελειό· εις μάτην. Οι πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις, αντί να μειώνονται, πυκνώνουν. Οι Παλαιστίνιοι όμως αξίζουν ένα δικό τους κράτος και αυτό δεν είναι δική μου παρατήρηση, αλλά απαίτηση 135 χωρών που έχουν αναγνωρίσει το κράτος αυτό. Πολλά χρόνια μετά την πτώση του Τείχους του Βερολίνου, είναι, αν μη τι άλλο, ανόητο να συζητούμε σήμερα για το αν θα συνεχίσουμε να επιτρέπουμε την πολιτική του Ισραήλ στη Λωρίδα της Γάζας. Ένας λαός δηλαδή που μας θυμίζει ανά πάσα στιγμή τη γενοκτονία που υπέστη δεν διστάζει να πράττει τα ίδια σε ένα λαό που το μόνο που ζητά είναι να έχει κράτος. Η ιστορία μάλλον επαναλαμβάνεται όχι ως πιστό αντίγραφο, αλλά ως υπενθύμιση του σεβασμού που οφείλουν να έχουν οι λαοί μεταξύ τους.




  Francesc Gambús (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Vicepresidenta Mogherini, quiero sumarme a los agradecimientos por su planteamiento general de la cuestión así como por el estado de ánimo —si me permite— con que ha venido usted al Parlamento, como lo ha reiterado diciendo que venía a escuchar.

Es cierto —y lo decía usted y lo han reiterado algunos diputados— que este Parlamento no tiene competencias en reconocimiento de Estados, pero como suele decir —y me gusta citarlo— el alcalde de Barcelona, es importante para un responsable político saber aquello que es de su competencia y aquello que es de su incumbencia. Y Oriente Medio es de la incumbencia del Parlamento Europeo. Es más, ante quienes han reclamado hoy aquí que deberíamos dejar a los Estados hacer su trabajo y que la Unión Europea no debería entrometerse, quizá es bueno hacernos la reflexión de que, tras tantos siglos de fracasos de los Estados en la gestión del conflicto en Oriente Medio, a lo mejor estaría indicado que a la Unión Europea se le diera la oportunidad de buscar la paz allí donde los Estados ya han demostrado su fracaso.

El reconocimiento de Palestina como Estado, sujeto de Derecho internacional, nunca puede ser percibido como una decisión acordada en contra de Israel, Estado al que tengo en alta estima y al que siempre defenderé ante aquellos que le niegan su derecho a existir. Tengo la convicción de que, tras tantos años de conflicto en Oriente Próximo, la única solución posible es la coexistencia pacífica y negociada de dos Estados, Israel y Palestina. Estoy convencido de que dicha coexistencia es posible, pero este fin solo se logrará si se da una oportunidad a la negociación y al diálogo, si se acepta que el pasado debe dejar de dictar el presente y dejarnos preparar el futuro.


  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario Mogherini, intanto volevo ringraziarla per la visita fatta all'inizio del suo mandato in Medio Oriente. Partire da lì per cercare di risolvere un conflitto che sta alla base degli innumerevoli problemi che abbiamo nella regione è decisivo. Tuttavia, come lei sa, la strada non è semplice e come possiamo immaginare il problema non è semplicemente quello del riconoscimento dello Stato palestinese – anche se il tema esiste, eccome se esiste – ma soprattutto quello di ciò che noi possiamo fare perché il negoziato di pace, oggi fermo, possa procedere veramente.

Non c'è molto tempo. Mi auguro, come lei dice, che vi sia una nuova consapevolezza tra le parti, ma ho il timore che gli estremismi in Israele, così come in Palestina, possano avere il sopravvento e chiudere definitivamente gli spazi di dialogo. E dunque se il tema fondamentale è la ripresa del negoziato, allora cosa possiamo fare per ottenere tutto questo, al di là dell'azione diplomatica? Molto, io penso. Possiamo e dobbiamo agire su tutti gli strumenti a nostra disposizione, compresi quelli economici, finanziari e commerciali. Siamo il primo donatore verso l'Autorità palestinese. Il mercato europeo è di gran lunga il primo mercato per Israele e per le sue esportazioni. Dovremmo utilizzare queste due leve per esercitare la pressione necessaria e per costringere al negoziato e alla sua positiva conclusione.


  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, [no sound] … quite correctly observed when Europe does not anchor itself firmly to its values, it sets itself adrift. We have much of which to be proud in our history, but the burned scars on children in Gaza have left a permanent imprint on the minds of our citizens and are now permanently etched on our humanity.

Far too many of our governments have been caught off guard and out of step with public opinion: rushing to provide denials as Europeans watched the horrors inflicted on innocents unfolding second by second, their suffering and hopelessness capturing the European conscience, pleading for calls of ‘never again!’ Today our parliaments are reflecting that public mood, one after another lining up to state clearly that the time has come to give the Palestinians a state and a homeland in order to protect them. There should be no parliament from where that call should be louder or clearer than the European Parliament.

Madam Vice-President of the Commission, you quite clearly have recognised the urgency we feel that this matter should be dealt with, yet illegal settlements continue as we sit here debating. A failure to do all in our power to end such horrors so that this should never happen again is to unanchor Europe and set ourselves adrift from our values and our humanity. Madam, be innovative, and this Parliament will be with you.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)).


  Arne Gericke (ECR), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Karim, wir reden hier immer von Israel und dem Gaza-Streifen bzw. der Westbank. Sind es immer die Israelis, die verantwortlich sind, die im Grunde von den Palästinensern, besonders von der Hamas, mit der dauerhaften Vernichtung bedroht werden? Wie steht es denn eigentlich mit dem Verhältnis zwischen den Palästinensern und den Arabern? Soweit ich weiß, haben alle arabischen Staaten die Unterstützung der Palästinenser aufgekündigt, seit sich Arafat Anfang der 90er Jahre pro Saddam Hussein geäußert hat. Warum appelliert man nicht erst mal an die Freunde der Palästinenser, bevor man an einen Staat appelliert, der von dauerhafter Vernichtung bedroht ist?


  Sajjad Karim (ECR), blue-card answer. – In my remarks I very clearly referred to the ‘innocents’. There are innocents on all sides. The fact that we are seeing young children being subjected to the sorts of horrors which are completely unimaginable ought to awaken the humanity in all of us. That is where Europe must once again pin its values and pin the hopes of the citizens of Europe, who today want us to come forward with a positive, momentous action programme. That is something to which I believe our High Representative was referring today, and for that you will have our support.


  Teresa Rodriguez-Rubio (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, mire, no soporto la equidistancia en el debate sobre Palestina. No la soporto. Desmond Tutu lo decía mucho mejor que yo hace un momento. Él decía: «Si eres neutral en situaciones de injusticia, has elegido el lado del opresor».

Hace un rato se decía que por qué debería la Unión Europea intervenir en asuntos que no le son propios. ¿Acaso no interviene la Unión Europea cuando mantiene un acuerdo preferencial de comercio con Israel ignorando el artículo referido al cumplimiento de los derechos humanos contenido en ese mismo acuerdo? ¿Acaso no interviene la Unión Europea cuando sus miembros venden armas a Israel?

Como parte de la comunidad internacional, ¿no debería la Unión Europea exigir el cumplimiento de todas las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas en el territorio, incluida la 194 sobre el retorno de los refugiados, incluida la 242 sobre la retirada de los territorios ocupados? Y todavía estábamos hablando del reconocimiento del Estado de Israel. Es impresionante.

Hoy la situación no debería, no podría ser peor. Y es así por la inestimable complicidad de la Unión Europea, de quienes estamos aquí. Símbolo de esa complicidad es Durão Barroso recogiendo un premio en la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén en territorios ocupados.


  Gianluca Buonanno (NI). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quando ero un bambino la questione della Palestina era in piedi già da tempo, e io mi auguravo che fosse una questione che durasse poco. Adesso mi ritrovo ad essere europarlamentare e si discute ancora delle questioni che riguardano la Palestina e Israele. Ma allora noi che parliamo tanto, che diamo lezioni a tutto il mondo, non siamo stati capaci di risolvere questo tipo di problema e mi fa pensare veramente che allora è un po' difficile insegnare agli altri quando non si è capaci noi stessi di portare a casa un risultato.

Ad esempio, l'accordo con Palestina e Israele non può essere unilaterale, deve essere bilaterale, deve essere diretto tra palestinesi e israeliani, perché altrimenti alla fine verrebbe solo fuori che alla Palestina viene dato un grande ruolo e nello stesso tempo viene premiata Hamas, e per quello che ho visto io Hamas è solo azione terroristica, che ricorda molto spesso le azioni dei nazisti. E poi mi interrogo sui palestinesi e i soldi di Arafat: come ha fatto a fare tutti questi soldi Arafat? Da chi ha preso questi soldi, dove li ha messi e perché non ha aiutato la sua gente?


  Lars Adaktusson (PPE). - Herr talman! När det nu höjs röster för att följa den svenska regeringens beslut att erkänna en palestinsk stat så finns det anledning att reagera.

Det villkorslösa erkännandet är en signal om att förhandlingsresultat kan åstadkommas i den israelisk-palestinska konflikten utan samtal mellan parterna. Detta strider mot EU:s grundläggande uppfattning hittills att bilaterala förhandlingar är den enda vägen till varaktig fred och en självständig palestinsk stat.

Mot ett erkännande talar också allvarliga folkrättsliga hinder. Idag existerar de facto ingen palestinsk stat. Därmed är inte den internationella Montevideokonventionens kriterier för ett erkännande uppfyllda. Förutsättningarna för ett erkännande är att en ny stat kontrollerar sitt eget territorium och har löst eventuella gränstvister. Sådan är inte situationen idag.

Ett erkännande av en stat är inte en gest eller ett politisk stöd i största allmänhet. Det är ett folkrättsligt konstaterande av fakta. Här i parlamentet måste vi därför avstå från populismen och från ansvarslösheten i den svenska regerings anda.

I anständighetens namn kan vi som parlament heller inte bortse från det faktum att de palestinska områdena till stor del kontrolleras av Hamas. Hamas mål är att staten Israel ska utplånas. Av EU är Hamas stämplat som en terrororganisation.

Det allvarliga läget just nu, när vi talar, i Mellanöstern kräver politiskt ansvarstagande och ett EU som agerar gemensamt. Det som står på spel är en fredlig utveckling byggd på framförhandlad förhandlingslösning mellan parterna och på grundläggande värderingar om folkrätt och om demokrati.

(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 149.8 i arbetsordningen).


  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Blåt kort-spørgsmål. – Så vil jeg da gerne spørge min svenske kollega, om han er uopmærksom på, at f.eks. FN allerede i slutningen af 40’erne sagde, noget skulle være Palæstina; at vi masser af gange har talt om Palæstina; og om han finder, at det er i overensstemmelse med folkeret og retfærdighed, at man pålægger betingelser på de besatte i stedet for at gøre det på besættelsesmagten?


  Lars Adaktusson (PPE), svar (”blått kort”). – Herr talman! Folkrätten är entydig när det gäller de krav som ställs för ett erkännande och faktum är – var vi än står i den här frågan – att kriterierna för ett erkännande inte är uppfyllda. Det tycker jag är en av de viktigaste invändningarna mot ett palestinskt erkännande just nu. Det innebär inte att vi inte ska erkänna Palestina när den tiden kommer. Men den tiden kommer efter att det finns ett framförhandlat avtal mellan de båda parterna.


  Maria Arena (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je souhaiterais remercier la haute représentante pour la priorité qu'elle a accordée à ce conflit israélo-palestinien dès le début de son mandat. Je remercie également les États membres qui ont déjà entamé ce processus de reconnaissance.

La reconnaissance de l'État palestinien, ce n'est pas une récompense, c'est tout simplement un droit. La reconnaissance de l'État palestinien ne se négocie pas avec un occupant. La reconnaissance de l'État palestinien, c'est pour nous la garantie d'une reprise du dialogue qui, jusqu'à aujourd'hui, a échoué. C'est aussi un souffle pour la solution à deux États qui a été défendue jusqu'à aujourd'hui par l'Union. La reconnaissance permet de négocier de manière plus égale entre les deux parties. Mais la reconnaissance, c'est également plus de responsabilité pour les autorités et l'Autorité palestinienne.

L'Union doit jouer son rôle aujourd'hui. Le Parlement doit vous soutenir, Madame la Haute représentante, et c'est ce que nous souhaitons, aujourd'hui, dans ce Parlement.

Je salue également les centaines de patriotes israéliens qui ont signé cette pétition pour la reconnaissance de l'État palestinien. Ces patriotes israéliens ont l'amour de leur pays et savent que cette reconnaissance est la meilleure solution pour garantir l'État d'Israël.


  Marcus Pretzell (ECR). - Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Welchen palästinensischen Staat sollen wir anerkennen? Den der Hamas in Gaza oder den der Fatah in der Westbank? Ich kann den Wunsch nach einem palästinensischen Staat nachvollziehen. Doch dieser Schritt will gut überlegt und vor allem vorbereitet sein. Die wichtigste Frage, die es in diesem Zusammenhang zu beantworten gilt, lautet: Wird dieser Schritt zu Frieden und Stabilität im Nahen Osten führen, oder würde nicht vielmehr neuer Nährboden für noch mehr Unruhen geschaffen? Würde die Hamas ihr erklärtes Ziel aufgeben, Israel zu vernichten, oder würde sie nicht in staatlicher Form und in Zukunft legalisiert und mit Unterstützung der Europäischen Union ihr Ziel weiterverfolgen? Es gilt, klarzustellen, dass Menschenrechte zu respektieren sind, dass Minderheitenschutz zu gewähren ist, und vor allem gilt es zu klären, dass der palästinensische Staat ein demokratischer Rechtsstaat wäre. Solange diese Fragen nicht überzeugend beantwortet sind, solange wir keine Garantie dafür haben, dass der neue Staat ein demokratischer Rechtsstaat ist, kann ich vor einer Anerkennung eines palästinensischen Staates nur warnen.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Krisztina Morvai (NI), blue-card question. – It is really horrifying to hear all these people talking about Israel as a rule-of-law state. Could you please tell me what Israel has to do with the rule of law when every now and then they keep killing innocent civilians, including children? What do they have to do with the rule of law when they rob other people’s land, in violation of all the United Nations and other international law regulations? They keep building settlements; they have summary killing and summary demolition of people’s homes. What does it have to do with the rule of law?

Sir, would you please tell me what you mean by the rule of law, and why you support Israel, the state of child killers and land robbers?


  Marcus Pretzell (ECR), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Kollegin, es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten. Entweder haben Sie mir nicht richtig zugehört, oder die Übersetzung ist wirklich katastrophal. Ich hatte gar nicht davon gesprochen, dass Israel ein Rechtsstaat ist. Wobei Israel ein Rechtsstaat ist! Das ist ein ganz anderer Punkt. Aber ich hatte das in meiner Rede gar nicht erwähnt. Frau Kollegin, dieses Parlament sollte sich um ganz andere Dinge kümmern. Dieses Parlament sollte sich darum kümmern, was wirklich seine Aufgabe ist, zum Beispiel Terrorismus in Israel und in Palästina nicht zu unterstützen. Darum sollte sich dieses Parlament kümmern.

Um noch einmal auf Ihre Frage mit dem Rechtsstaat einzugehen: Es ging mir darum, dass der palästinensische Staat, wenn er denn anerkannt wird, ein Rechtsstaat sein muss. Und das muss vorher sichergestellt sein, das können wir nicht auf gut Glück versuchen.


  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). - O reconhecimento do Estado palestiniano representa um ato elementar de justiça face ao que tem sido o martírio de longas décadas sofrido por parte do povo palestino. Reconhecer o Estado palestiniano, de acordo com as resoluções da ONU, com base nas fronteiras de 66 e com capital em Jerusalém oriental, é a melhor forma de relançar as negociações de paz. A solução dois Estados deve ser apoiada e concretizada. Muitas personalidades da sociedade israelita partilham este ponto de vista.

A União Europeia é um dos principais doadores para aquela região, deve usar todo o seu peso político e económico para pôr fim à agressão israelita e contribuir para que todos os Estados-Membros que ainda não o fizeram reconheçam o Estado palestiniano em nome dos mais elementares direitos humanos das populações.


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Herr talman! En tvåstatslösning är nödvändig för att uppnå fred och stabilitet i Mellersta östern. Men en tvåstatslösning måste bygga på två stater som erkänner varandras rätt till existens, som kan erkänna varandras rätt till heliga gränser och som kan bidra till rättsstat och respekt för mänskliga fri- och rättigheter.

Om man inte ställer de här kraven så riskerar ett ensidigt erkännande utan krav på förmåga att kontrollera sitt territorium mot terror, utan krav på att uppfylla mänskliga fri- och rättigheter, så innebär det en öppning för terrorism. En tvåstatslösning får aldrig innebära att man erkänner terrorism, förakt för mänskliga fri- och rättigheter och förakt för kvinnors roll i det samhälle man lever i.

Låt oss vara på det klara med att i den Mellersta östern vi i dag talar om ser vi i dag en utveckling av terrorism och våld och hat i en omfattning som vi inte har sett tidigare och som går långt bortom konflikter mellan israeler och palestinier. Att i det läget acceptera att terrorism utövas från en del av en stat, att i det läget släppa kraven på att en stat ska kunna fungera som en stat, innebär att man underminerar möjligheterna att uppnå en tvåstatslösning som bidrar till fred och demokrati.

Vi vet alla att Israel lever under ständigt hot av terror, krig och våld, antisemitism av det värsta slag. Inte bara från sina närmaste grannar, utan från en lång rad olika rörelser. En tvåstatslösning måste innebära att vi skapar säkerhet och respekt för alla människor, för israeler och för palestinier. Därför måste det ställas krav. Vi får aldrig erkänna terrorismen.

(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen).


  Σοφία Σακοράφα (GUE/NGL), ερώτηση “γαλάζια κάρτα”. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω τον κύριο συνάδελφο από πότε πιστεύει ότι η κατοχή μπορεί να είναι παράγοντας ειρήνης σε μια περιοχή και από πότε πιστεύει ότι η αντίσταση μπορεί να ονομάζεται τρομοκρατία, η αντίσταση ενός λαού ενάντια στην κατοχή που ένας άλλος λαός του επιβάλλει.


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card answer. – I can certainly tell my colleague that an occupation must end by having achieved peace and the recognition of peaceful cohabitation. But if you accept movements like Hamas, Hezbollah and the even worse extremes, I can assure you that they are not fighting for independent, democratic sovereign states. They are fighting for a society where people’s rights are humiliated. I do not want to have a Palestinian state that is in control of those who are today leading Gaza. I want a Palestinian state that can fulfil democratic obligations, that respects each and everyone. That is what it is our duty to secure and that requires a long-term process.


  Afzal Khan (S&D). - Mr President, let begin by thanking High Representative Mogherini for the hard work that she is putting in to find a solution to this terrible problem in the Middle East. One hundred and thirty-five countries, including many European ones, have already recognised Palestine. Recently Sweden and the parliaments in the UK, Ireland and Spain followed suit. While this is progress, it is saddening that it took over 2 000 Gazans to die in the latest Israeli attack for Europe to start acting. Every nation deserves to be recognised, and the Palestinians have suffered immensely.

It is a huge disappointment that the EU vote has been delayed. Every second wasted costs innocent lives. The greatest threat is the illegal settlements in Palestine, which continue to grow without account. The two-state solution is the only real chance for peace, putting both on an equal footing. Israeli citizens believe this too, and an Israeli petition in favour of this has been publicly handed over outside Parliament this evening. The EU must have a coordinated approach to ensure peace and security and stability for all. It is time to give the Palestinians some hope. I urge all of us to take the bold step forward and vote to recognise Palestine.


  Ángela Vallina (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, desde 1948 Israel viola todas las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas y también los derechos humanos y el Derecho internacional, y ningún país europeo ha cuestionado su reconocimiento. El reconocimiento del Estado palestino es una responsabilidad y una obligación moral de los mismos países que propiciaron su partición en 1947. Lo contrario, además, significaría la debilidad de Europa para convertirse en agente promotor de la paz.

Reconocer a Palestina será un paso que generaciones futuras recordarán como la decisión de Europa de ponerse en el lado correcto de la historia, algo parecido a lo que sucedió con el apartheid en Sudáfrica: los países que lo sostuvieron son recordados con bochorno actualmente. Hoy mismo el premio Sájarov nos recordaba en esta Cámara a todos y a todas que la dignidad humana debe estar en el centro de todas las políticas. El reconocimiento de Palestina es una prueba básica de la existencia o no de la voluntad política de buscar la paz y de estar en contra de la injusticia y de la ilegalidad.

(La oradora acepta responder a dos preguntas formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento))


  Steven Woolfe (EFDD), blue-card question. – You mentioned South Africa. Do you not agree with the words of Nelson Mandela, who once said that he could not conceive of Israel withdrawing or giving up land if Arab states did not recognise Israel within secure borders? Do you not recognise that passing the motions that you want to have in this House will lead to a Government of Hamas, a terrorist organisation which does not accept the right of Israel to exist, and therefore there will be no peace?


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Já bych se chtěla paní kolegyně zeptat, zda ona uznává existenci izraelského státu? Kdo jí dává právo nazývat agresí to, když se Izrael brání teroristickým útokům?


  Ángela Vallina (GUE/NGL), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Se suele decir que no hay más ciego que el que no quiere ver. Quien tiene uno de los mayores ejércitos del mundo, quien está machacando a la población, quien está ocupando territorios, derribando y destruyendo las casas de los palestinos y echándolos de sus tierras, no respetando y encarcelando a mujeres y niños, así como matando, es el agresor. Y, como dice la Carta fundacional de las Naciones Unidas, todo pueblo ocupado tiene derecho a defenderse.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). - Pozorno sem vas poslušala gospa podpredsednica in močno podpiram vaša pogumna prizadevanja za sporazumno rešitev, za mir in sožitje na Bližnjem vzhodu. Skrajni čas je, da govorimo o priznanju palestinske države tu v Evropskem parlamentu.

Zavedam se občutljivosti, kot tudi nujnosti modrih potez. V moji državi Sloveniji prav ta teden odločamo o nadaljnjih korakih k priznanju palestinske države. Socialni demokrati smo to odločitev že sprejeli.

Dejstvo je, da želimo vzpostaviti dve državi. Dve varni državi, ki bosta jamčili mir v regiji. Težko in boleče je desetletja spremljati nasilje, oborožene spopade, nezakonite gradnje, nenehno kršenje mednarodnega prava in človekovih pravic. Vsako nedolžno življenje, ne eni ali na drugi strani, ovira in zaostruje iskanje rešitve.

Strinjam se z vami, da potrebujemo tu, v Evropskem parlamentu, močno, skupno evropsko sporočilo. Upanje imam, da bomo z vami gospa Mogherini, z vašo ekipo, dosegli rešitev dveh držav in njuno medsebojno priznanje. Edino to bo jamstvo za mir na Bližnjem vzhodu.


  Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, perché dobbiamo riconoscere lo Stato palestinese? Non per indebolire e ferire Israele, ma per restituirgli una forza condannata a perire se è solo militare. Nessuno Stato può sopravvivere come democrazia se occupa terre non sue. Penso che Israele abbia bisogno di darsi infine frontiere non solo legali ma legittime, che non si possa chiedere ai palestinesi l'assoggettamento senza fine, la rinuncia alla statualità. Anche in Europa le cose andarono così. Le frontiere sono sormontabili se non più contese.

Israele deve la sua nascita alla storia nera d'Europa, ne siamo corresponsabili. Per questo è importante che sia questo Parlamento a compiere il gesto: riconoscere ai palestinesi il riscatto di una statualità. Se il gesto non è compiuto, i governi israeliani proveranno un sollievo breve, ricadranno in sempre nuove guerre come i sonnambuli nazionalismi che distrussero l'Europa in nome di un'etnia o una terra colpevolmente sacralizzata.


  Brando Benifei (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, condivido il richiamo fatto dai colleghi sulla necessità di raggiungere una posizione bilanciata che raccolga il più ampio consenso possibile all'interno di questo Parlamento, ma credo che questa posizione debba centrare il tema politico del riconoscimento dello Stato palestinese in maniera chiara. Alcuni politici israeliani, penso a Hilik Bar del partito laburista, pensano che sia Israele a dover compiere addirittura per primo questa azione, e credo che abbiano ragione, per il proprio futuro.

Allo stesso tempo ritengo essenziale però che il nostro documento sia considerato, una volta approvato, un atto di più forte legittimazione verso la Stato palestinese per riaprire i negoziati con Israele. Una posizione del Parlamento non può essere interpretata come un riconoscimento che neghi l'utilità dei negoziati e della riapertura di essi da parte dei palestinesi con Israele e viceversa. I negoziati rappresentano l'unica strada per arrivare a una soluzione definitiva del conflitto con il necessario e fondamentale intervento anche dell'Unione europea, che ha reiniziato per fortuna a far pesare la propria forza e la propria influenza anche grazie a Federica Mogherini in queste prime settimane.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, Alta Representante Mogherini, este debate expresa la exasperación de buena parte de los actores europeos con respecto de la degradación del conflicto israelo-palestino y de la entera región. El inmovilismo no es una opción y esta resolución quiere contribuir a mover al conjunto de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea hacia un reconocimiento del Estado palestino. Pero este reconocimiento tiene que ser mutuo, porque es imprescindible que no sea unidireccional, sino que comporte también la sensatez y la valentía de Palestina de reconocer al Estado de Israel, porque es la única forma de contribuir a una paz segura en la que puedan convivir dos Estados democráticos, comprometidos con la legalidad internacional.

Eso requiere, sin duda ninguna, una apuesta por parte de la Unión Europea de estímulo a la creación de las estructuras de gobernanza en una comunidad que ya existe como pueblo y que ya está asentada en su territorio, pero que requiere también la determinación de convivir en fronteras no conflictivas y seguras con un Estado vecino, con un Estado contiguo y con un Estado democrático, como es el Estado de Israel.


  Eugen Freund (S&D). - Mr President, the High Representative can clearly see that this is the most sensitive and most difficult foreign policy issue that the European Parliament has to tackle. To tell the truth, I am ambivalent. I do not know what the right decision is, because one thing for sure is that peace can only be achieved if and when Israel and the Palestinians are ready.

For decades now, there has been frustratingly little progress in peace processes. Not because no one tried; we have seen many attempts by outside powers to initiate, to prompt, to cajole the two sides into settling their differences, but to no avail. And, by the way, it was mainly the United States and not Europe that, up until now, undertook those numerous efforts.

The great number of victims on both sides over the past 40 years is a sad testament to the failure of many diplomatic attempts. To recognise the State of Palestine might bring the parties back to the negotiating table but, as I said, we cannot force them to make peace; only they can do this.


  Vincent Peillon (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, d'abord, merci pour votre engagement, nous l'attendions depuis longtemps. Enfin, l'Union commence à se saisir d'un problème important! Vous cherchez la paix et un rôle politique pour l'Union, il faut donc la crédibilité et le rassemblement. Faisons attention à ce que ce débat ne nous mette pas dans la situation – que vous avez d'ailleurs un peu connue lorsque vous êtes allée à Gaza – où nous perdrions notre crédibilité, où nous serions désunis. À Gaza, vous l'avez vu, vous avez pu y entrer, le gouvernement palestinien n'a pas pu, dans son propre territoire.

Nous faisons dans cette discussion comme si les États ou les parlements qui incitaient les États européens à prendre une position avaient la même position. C'est faux! Le Parlement français, le Parlement suédois et le Parlement espagnol ont des positions différentes. L'Union affiche son désaccord. En Espagne, on ne parle pas de reconnaissance puis de négociation, mais de négociation puis de reconnaissance. Il faut y veiller pour donner de la force à votre action.

Enfin, 135 États ont déjà procédé à cette reconnaissance, et nous avons bien vu que cela n'avait pas pour autant incité à la paix. Nous avons besoin de sortir du statu quo, nous allons vous appuyer pleinement, mais il faut une initiative qui, au-delà de la reconnaissance, soit une initiative et un chemin pour la paix qui prennent en considération les uns et les autres. Il y a dans cette initiative un peu hâtive une forme de paresse. Faisons attention à ce qu'elle ne divise pas le Parlement européen, l'Union européenne, et qu'elle ne nous fasse pas perdre toute crédibilité.


  Boris Zala (S&D). - Mr President, Palestinian people deserve a sovereign state just as Israel has the right to live in peace. As a friend of Israel I support the recognition of Palestinian statehood. The move is not meant to undermine Israel’s position; on the contrary, its purpose is to rescue the two-state solution, which is the only alternative for Israel’s security. Today, after the failure of Kerry’s initiative, after violence in Jerusalem, it is time for the EU to assume more responsibility.

Recognition of Palestine is a powerful diplomatic tool; we should use it wisely to help restart peace negotiations. Recognition of the Palestinians in the pre-1967 borders will strengthen all those Israelis and Palestinians who believe in the two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu may not like to hear it, but I am convinced that recognising Palestine could be one of the EU’s greatest contributions to Israeli security.


  Tonino Picula (S&D). - Gospodine predsjedniče, gospođo visoka predstavnice, priznanje palestinske države trebalo bi biti početna točka jednog novog procesa, ali to je i akt razumljiv sam po sebi. Ja neovisnu Palestinu ne vidim kao novi faktor u nastavku dugotrajnog sukoba, nego kao mogućnost za djelotvorniju potragu za novim mirovnim rješenjem.

To govorim kao sudionik i svjedok raspadanja i uspostavljanja država na samom europskom tlu. Dok međunarodna zajednica nije priznala Republike bivše Jugoslavije kao nove države, mir nije postojao ni kao naznaka, iako je pregovora bilo jako puno, uzaludnih naravno. Svakako priznanje palestinske države nikako ne smije biti iskorišteno za legalizaciju terorističkog obračuna s Izraelom, i u tom pogledu treba tražiti jamstva. S druge strane, pravo Izraela na obranu često je zloupotrebljavano i prelazilo u praksu državnog terorizma.

And something about us, the European Union and the European Parliament: as a so-called ‘soft power’ we need to face really hard choices from time to time. We have to do this for the sake of our prospects as a role model in the 21st century.


(Pytania z sali)


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). - Já osobně nesdílím názory, které ostrakizují Izrael a vyzdvihují Palestinu, na ten problém se musíme dívat komplexně. Já bych chtěl důsledně varovat před tím, abychom udělali nějaký jednostranný krok bez konzultace s Izraelem. Nechtěl bych, aby ten krok narušil to, bych řekl, velmi křehké současné příměří mezi Izraelci a Palestinci.

Nechci, aby lidé umírali. Chci, aby už na územích Svaté země zavládl mír. Ten mír opravdu musí tvořit dvě strany.

Souhlasím tedy s názory, že Evropská unie není ten, kdo by měl říkat, že se má uznávat jeden či druhý stát, protože pak nastane situace, kdy přijde referendum ve Španělsku a přijdou státy z vnějšku, které budou uznávat nějaký stát, který my uznávat nechceme.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 29 novembre l'ONU celebra la Giornata mondiale di solidarietà con il popolo palestinese. Dopo oltre 60 anni di attesa finalmente il tema del riconoscimento della Palestina è diventato di stretta attualità per tutte le cancellerie europee. Dopo la Svezia, la Spagna, il Regno Unito e l'Irlanda, anche la Francia, la Danimarca e il Belgio si avviano ufficialmente al riconoscimento della Palestina come Stato autonomo e soggetto di diritto internazionale. Finalmente dunque si vanno affermando il principio di "due Stati, due popoli" e il principio del reciproco riconoscimento quali condizioni perché il popolo palestinese e quello di Israele possano vivere in pace, sicurezza e democrazia.

È necessario che l'Europa contribuisca ad individuare una soluzione che risponda alle esigenze di sicurezza economica ed umanitaria di israeliani e palestinesi, lavorando per la ripresa della fase negoziale. Il riconoscimento dello Stato palestinese può fornire un contributo decisivo per la pace in Medio Oriente. Su questo tema si misura la volontà dell'Unione europea di divenire effettivamente un player importante e decisivo nello scenario politico internazionale. Intanto buon lavoro e congratulazioni all'Alto rappresentante Mogherini per quanto sta facendo.


  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, apoyo el reconocimiento del Estado palestino con las fronteras de 1967.

Palestina es observador en la Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas desde 2012 y este reconocimiento es un acto de paz. Se basa en negociaciones, acuerdos y palabras para sustituir a las armas y a la guerra. Lo preferimos a los actos de ocupación unilaterales y violentos de Israel. Y en Europa, las guerras y brutales vulneraciones de derechos humanos nos hicieron entender la importancia de la paz. Mahmud Abás utilizó exactamente esta idea en el año 2012 ante la Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas. Convenció a 138 países, lo que no consiguieron los cohetes de Hamás. Israel no respondió —como acostumbra— y no multiplicó por cien los deseos de paz de Palestina, y eso es lo que hace con las agresiones violentas que padece y que condenamos sin matices.

Ayudemos al pueblo elegido a entender que los palestinos son sus semejantes, que son personas, que no son enemigos.

Gracias, señora Mogherini, por todos sus esfuerzos.


  Josu Juaristi Abaunz (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, es la hora de la política, como ha dicho el exponente de la OLP, Saeb Erekat. Y el reconocimiento del Estado de Palestina es un modo —el más justo— de avanzar hacia una paz precisamente justa y duradera. Es necesario, además, para modificar el tablero de juego, para alterar la correlación de fuerzas y para hacer posible el diálogo.

Necesitamos audacia política, hechos sobre el terreno y superar la inercia. El reconocimiento debe servir, además, para otorgar en el plano internacional al pueblo palestino la dignidad que merece. Es el momento de reconocer al Estado palestino. Es el momento, porque Palestina no puede esperar. La paz en Oriente Próximo no puede esperar.


  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). - Señor Presidente, señora Mogherini, muchas gracias por estar aquí y por su actitud, sobre todo.

Para la Unión Europea reconocer el Estado palestino es solo el principio. Implica asumir un nuevo papel activo en relación con el conflicto que los Estados miembros han sido incapaces de detener o reconducir durante tantos años. Un papel activo no solo humanitario ni de retórica condenatoria. Para resumir ese papel, podríamos utilizar seis verbos en telegrama: uno, reabrir las fronteras; dos, evitar o cerrar nuevos y anteriores asentamientos; tres, reconstruir sistemáticamente ciudades e instalaciones tantas veces como haga falta; cuatro, sancionar económica y políticamente los incumplimientos y violaciones de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas; cinco, prohibir o limitar —o controlar en todo caso— el tráfico de armas; y seis, estar presente, estar ahí, enviar ya una delegación de este Parlamento Europeo a Gaza y, en alguna medida, adoptar una actitud en relación con Palestina como si fuera nuestro protectorado.

Esa yo creo que es la responsabilidad que asume la Unión Europea cuando reconoce el Estado palestino.


  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). - Mr President, this is a very serious situation, as we all know, and of course, we all want a fair resolution for both sides, and this can only be done through serious international diplomacy. I would suggest national diplomacy, but I do hope that everyone’s diplomacy works.

This is far too serious. It is too serious as well for gesture politics, and yet everywhere I go, at home and here, I see those on the Left making gesture politics: queuing up to expose their bleeding heart about this, and then not having the courage to take questions on the issue when someone wants to discuss it with them. Back in Dudley, where I come from, the Labour group is trying to make a motion to ban the purchase of goods from Israel – another absurd gesture. You cannot do these things; this is far too serious. Have some grown-up political thought for once, and allow the diplomats to do what is required. These are people’s lives and not just your gestures.


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Kedves Biztos Asszony és kedves Képviselőtársaim! Az első intifáda óta, vagyis 2000 óta 125 izraeli gyermek életét követelte ez a véres konfliktus, és 1450 palesztin gyermeket gyilkolt meg a zsidó állam. Önök terroristának nevezik a Hamaszt. Kérdezem, hogy logikus-e a következtetésem, hogy ha a Hamasz egy terrorista szervezet– Önök szerint–, akkor a zsidó államot minden további nélkül lehet ezek után terrorista államnak nevezni.

Márpedig logikus a kérdés, hogy egy terrorista állammal meddig óhajt még társult partneri kapcsolatban lenni az Európai Unió. Kérdezem Önt, Biztos Asszony, nem látja-e idejét annak, hogy végre felfüggesszük legalábbis a társult partneri kapcsolatot Izraellel, amely minden kétséget kizáróan egy terrorista állam, amely gyermekeket gyilkol, és folyamatosan földet rabol. Köszönöm szépen!


(Koniec pytań z sali)


  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Estou aqui desde o princípio do debate. Pedi a palavra em catch the eye, pedi-a à frente de membros que entretanto falaram e, portanto, lavro aqui o meu protesto quanto aos critérios de seleção das pessoas em catch the eye.


  Przewodniczący. - Pani Poseł, z każdej grupy politycznej wybrałem po jednej osobie, w porządku, w którym się zgłaszały. Kryteria są bardzo czytelne i transparentne. Bardzo proszę o zabranie głosu panią komisarz Federicę Mogherini.


  Richard Corbett (S&D). - Mr President, under our Rules of Procedure, the catch-the-eye procedure is supposed to be for individual Members, not for spokesmen of political groups. I know this because I was the rapporteur that introduced this into our Rules of Procedure many years ago. It is supposed to be for individual backbenchers, not spokesmen of political groups, and if you say you have taken one backbencher per political group, then that is discriminatory against the backbenchers from the large groups. It favours the backbenchers from the small groups and the non-attached Members. So that is not a correct application of the procedure.


  Przewodniczący. - Takie przyjęliśmy zasady, w każdej prawie debacie tak postępujemy, nie było zamiarem żadnego z przewodniczących Parlamentu Europejskiego dyskryminowanie kogokolwiek. Udzielałem głosu według zgłoszeń, czyli ten, kto się zgłosił szybciej, otrzymał możliwość zabrania głosu. Bardzo proszę, pani komisarz Federica Mogherini.


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, honourable Members, let me thank you for this debate. I was surprised when I heard that many of you were thanking me – that is part of my responsibility and my role to be here. It is also useful for me being here and listening to this debate, but I will get to our institutional and political relationship at the end, when I will maybe touch upon the way forward, as some of you have rightly mentioned the need for joint work in the future.

Let me start by saying very sincerely and from my heart that this debate this afternoon shows not only that this is, as some of you mentioned, one of the most difficult issues on foreign policy in Europe – I am afraid we might have many of those – but it is definitely not the easiest one to start with. However, on the other side, let me very frankly say that this debate this afternoon mirrors the debate that is there in the region, and this is worrying to me because I think that this debate this afternoon shows that our frustration, and even our sense of desperation, is deep, and that we risk being trapped in the false illusion of us needing to take one side. We could not make a worse mistake than this.

You will never convince me – and I am sure that the majority of you in this House do not want to convince me – that you can be pro-Israeli without also being pro-Palestinian and that you can be pro-Palestinian without being pro-Israeli. The best way of helping the Israeli people is to build a Palestinian state, and the best way of helping the Palestinian people is to secure Israel’s security.

We have the responsibility to facilitate the dialogue between two camps, and in the two camps to strengthen those that want dialogue and want and understand that they have to live together, share a land and share an interest. If we lose lucidity, if we lose our capacity not to be trapped within the conflict ourselves, we lose our possibility to play this role – and there are not many international actors that are able to play this role, so we are bearing with us a responsibility.

In this conflict there are two things that are dangerous. The first, as someone said, is that it has gone on for too many decades. When I was born this conflict had already started. We are getting used to it, and this is dangerous. The second element that is worrying and is making things very complicated is that there is too much history and too little future in the debate. Barbara Spinelli was saying that we in Europe are somehow responsible. We bear a historical responsibility as Europeans for part of the roots of this debate, and so here it comes: a debate among us that mirrors the historical debate, sometimes going back hundreds of years, concerning how to get out of this trap.

I will always remember one of the best conversations I had in the region, and that was not with politician but with a novelist, who told me that we are trapped in a bubble. We need someone from the outside to burst the bubble and let us out. And this is our role. This can be our role if we keep the awareness of the responsibility that we bear. It is not only a historical responsibility but, to me, it is a responsibility for the future. So I am – and I will always be – a friend of Israel and a friend of Palestine and will always work to show that this is the only way to be friends of both and of each of them. I would really like us to manage to develop this awareness together, because this is what the Israelis and the Palestinians need in order for us to convince them and to help them, as they are not friends. It is difficult, but at least it makes it possible for them to share their land and their future.

What is our role? It is not interference. I heard someone say that we should not interfere and that it is not for the European Union to do anything about this. This is either for the Member States or we should leave them alone. Our role is also to take care of our neighbourhood, our region. These are our neighbours – for many of our Member States, many other countries and for us. It is our sea – the Mediterranean; the Middle East is close, and our relations with both the Palestinians, the Israelis and many of the countries that are concerned by the conflict are so strong that this is our business. Definitely so.

So it is not a matter of interference but one of playing our role in a responsible and effective way. I heard many of you referring to the fact that we have to discuss the recognition of the state and discuss the negotiations. Still I feel that many of you might share my vision, which is that neither the recognition of the state nor even the negotiations are goals in themselves. The goal is having a Palestinian state in place and having Israel living next to it.

Some of you have said that I do not have an answer, and maybe we all, as an international community, still do not have a complete answer about what are the right steps to take and in what order. I think the debate this afternoon reflects this very well – this questioning ourselves. What is the right order in which to take our steps? What is clear in my mind is that we cannot just sit and wait, because sitting and waiting is not keeping the status quo. Sitting and waiting is bringing us to the point where we close the doors to further negotiations and to the peace process. It is not going anywhere if we just do not do anything. It is getting worse and worse.

What are the steps? In my opinion, and from what I have heard today, I see as an element of my future work to strengthen inside the two camps the political leaders and the communities – not only the political leaderships but also the communities, because society has a role to play here – that are committed and that are capable of delivering peace and working on peace. Elmar Brok mentioned the fact that not everyone – in Israel or in Palestine – wanted two states. We have to be aware of that, because more and more people, both on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side, are talking about a one-state solution. We have to be aware of that. It has not come out here but it is coming out there. It might not be the case that our vision for the future will stay the same for decades. It is deteriorating for us as well.

So first, find better ways to support those internally in the two camps that are committed and help them show their own public opinion that this path is delivering for their own public opinion. This is the big question mark that we have to find an answer to. What is the best way to strengthen and make credible the people who on both sides still believe that peace is possible there?

Second, I believe, as some of you have recalled, that we have to work with the region. This sounds familiar today; it was not as normal only a few years ago, and that is why the peace initiative in 2002 did not go far. Now this is something we all agree on; we need to work with the countries and the region. Some of you, including Ms Alliot-Marie, have invited me and others to come back here with a detailed plan or even set it out today. I think it would probably not be serious enough from my side after three weeks in office to come to this Chamber and give you my detailed plan for peace in the Middle East. You would not believe me, and you would be right.

What I can share with you today is the main political elements of the efforts that the European Union is making, which are the ones that I described in the beginning and some of those that I am underlining now, and a road map – although a road map with the Middle East is not really working – but a plan, a way, steps that we can work on, and the commitment to come back here in this Chamber and update you on the steps taken, given the fact that I believe the European Union has a role to play – but not alone.

Because we have to be aware of the fact that, yes, we do have a role to play without necessarily sitting and waiting for others to call us to a table. We can initiate processes but we need to work with those international actors, starting with the United States and the Arab countries and the UN and the UN Security Council, to work together to restart a process. And I would mention here a country that no one in this room mentioned, but it is there in the UN Security Council and in the Quartet: Russia.

Not for the sake of negotiations; this is another trap we have to escape. Negotiations are something good, because while we have a process going on, violence is less likely to happen. But I believe that we also run the risk of calling for negotiations again for the sake of the process, and this is eroding the credibility of the process itself. We need the process to bring a result, especially on the Palestinian side – but also on the Israeli side. The criticism about the process and the talks is: yes, but what does it bring to our people? We need to make sure that the process and the talks deliver something very concrete for both parts, not in the far future but immediately. In this framework we can discuss further, and we will do it. For sure you will do it here in this Chamber. We will do it also with the Member States and we will do it also with our partners internationally, because I believe that all our diplomatic efforts need to be made together with the others.

I will mention another point that was raised by someone. We have two other challenges that are really European ones. One is anti-Semitism. I know you are working on that already, but I would be ready to work with you on that because I think we have a major challenge there that puts at risk our own sense of communities in Europe. And we have a parallel risk, which is that of Islamophobia, when we tend to associate in our societies Islam and terrorism or Arab societies and terrorism. We have to decouple the religious element and the political element, not only in the Middle East but also in Europe, and I think here we have a cultural and not only a political challenge that we could face.

I know very well that, as the European Parliament is for me a central body of the European institutions, it also has its autonomy and I would respect it, so my attitude today and for tomorrow and for the next five years, as we share the period of mandates, is and will always be to share, to listen, to decide together, if not officially politically, but to respect your autonomy. The decision whether to take a vote on the resolution or not is your decision; it is not my decision and can never be my decision. I will always respect your decisions; I will always respect the outcome of your decisions and try to work together hand in hand.

As someone was saying, I will also try to be as innovative as possible and hope that you can help me in this. I would invite you to use your power – which is not a little one, it is a big one – to support and shape this role of the European Union in the Middle East. I believe it is up to you to work on a united, strong and useful resolution or decision.

(Murmurs of disagreement)

I am sorry; I know that it is boring. But I think that you can leave if you are too bored.

I think this would not just be a reflection of your debate; this could be a useful political tool for the European Union. So be aware of the fact that this is going to be, as many of you have mentioned, a real contribution to the role and the work that the European Union can do in the Middle East. Do not waste it. Use it carefully, wisely, but use it in a way that can work on the results that we need. We need symbols; sometimes symbols are part of the steps, but we need to concentrate on what can make the click in the process and restart it again.

The lack of hope and the sense of desperation that are not only there in Gaza, though mainly in Gaza, but also in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are waiting for a push from our side: someone to burst the bubble and let the desperation out and some hope and future in.



  Przewodniczący. - Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się podczas kolejnej sesji miesięcznej naszego Parlamentu.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)


  Ana Gomes (S&D), escrito. – O reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina é um passo há muito devido e que urge para quebrar o impasse no Processo de Paz. O PE deve respaldar a Suécia e parlamentos nacionais que avançaram nesse sentido. Pelos palestinianos, mas também pelos israelitas. Em Israel hoje cada vez mais se cava, perigosamente, a contradição entre Estado Judaico e Estado democrático. O reconhecimento formal tem de ser acompanhado por um esforço europeu de apoio ao funcionamento de um Estado na Palestina, capaz de fornecer segurança à região, incluindo a Israel. A UE tem de fazer sentir a Israel que não tolera mais a política de opressão e ocupação a que está sujeito, desde 1967, o povo palestiniano – política que faz o jogo de forças extremistas, como o Hamas. O Acordo de Parceria UE-Israel deve ser suspenso enquanto se mantiver a ocupação ilegal. Sem o fim da ocupação, a Palestina não será terra segura – para palestinianos e para israelitas. A União Europeia deve contrariar a retórica reacionária do governo de Benjamin Netanyahu. É preciso que o povo israelita compreenda que o preço da sua segurança e da paz passa pela autoridade de um Estado viável, democrático e independente na Palestina.


  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. Those of us who are equally the friends of Jews and Palestinians must again today condemn the recent attacks on Israeli churchgoers and balance this with disapproval of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. Our declarations have little to no impact. Outsiders – Americans, Russians, jihadists, Europeans – cannot make peace happen in Israel and Palestine. Only, the Israelis and Palestinians can do it. Yet, developments in the area are having a powerful impact on the world we live in. On the one hand: despair and deep rage; on the other: a determination to maintain at all costs full control over Palestine. If peace is to be ever achieved, the only way out is for the dominant side to make concessions on major make-or-break issues, within well-defined limits. It needs to show good faith in doing so. The dominant side in Palestine is the Israeli Government. The make-or-break issue now is the spread of Jewish settlements with the full connivance of the government. Unfortunately, since the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, successive Israeli governments have demonstrated neither political will nor good faith in dealing with make-or-break issues. So unless this changes, both sides are condemned to keep living their epiphany of hate and despair.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Támogatom Mogherini főképviselő asszony törekvését, hogy az EU végre érdemi és nemzetközi súlyának megfelelő szerepet játsszon egy tartós közel–keleti békerendezésben. Ahhoz, hogy ebben hatékonyak és hitelesek legyünk, az EU egysége és pártatlansága elengedhetetlen.

Jelenleg a fő kihívás az erőszak, a terrorcselekmények megszüntetése és a béketárgyalások politikai feltételeinek megteremtése, amiben a palesztin államiság elismerése fontos eszköz, de nem végcél. Az elismerés akkor szolgálhatja a tartós béke ügyét, ha sikerül megtörni a Hamasz-terror logikáját. Ha nem, továbbra is számolhatunk az erőszak ördögi körét tápláló újabb terrorcselekményekkel, másrészt a palesztin kormányt, mint érdemi befolyással rendelkező tárgyalópartnert és mint hatékony államigazgatást ellehetetlenítő Hamasz-taktikával.

Az elismeréssel kapcsolatos állásfoglalásunk későbbre halasztásával nyert időt Európa, a nemzetközi közösséggel összefogva és erőfeszítéseinek élére állva, éppen e körülmények felszámolására, a terrorveszély visszaszorítására kell hasznosítsa. A politikai feltételek hiányában az elismerés az EU részéről nem csak a békefolyamat szempontjából bizonyulhat kontraproduktívnak: magyar képviselőként rá kell mutatnom, hogy egyes, jellemzően kelet-közép-európai tagállamokban muníciót adhat az azt pusztán antiszemita indíttatásból támogató – s ezzel a palesztin ügy megítélésének is ártó – szélsőséges, neonáci jellegű politikai erőknek is. Örülnék, ha a palesztin állam elismerésének alaposabb előkészítése és a terrorizmus elleni hatékonyabb fellépés egyúttal ezt a sajátos veszélyt is segítene kezelni.

Legal notice - Privacy policy