Sanatarkat istuntoselostukset

Tiistai 16. huhtikuuta 2019 - Strasbourg

15. Yhdysvaltojen päätös tunnustaa Golanin kukkulat osaksi Israelia ja Länsirannan siirtokuntien mahdollinen liittäminen Israeliin (keskustelu)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission varapuheenjohtajan ja unionin ulkoasioiden ja turvallisuuspolitiikan korkean edustajan julkilausuma Yhdysvaltojen päätöksestä tunnustaa Golanin kukkulat osaksi Israelia ja Länsirannan siirtokuntien mahdollinen liittäminen Israeliin (2019/2702(RSP))

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, today we discuss with this debate two separate issues. Both originate from the war of 1967, but they are separate ones – on the one hand, the decision by the US administration to recognise the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and on the other, the Israeli Government’s settlement policy in the West Bank. So let me tackle the two issues separately during this debate.

First, the US recognition of the Golan Heights. The European Union has a very simple and clear position that I’ve had the possibility to reiterate and restate in a very clear manner over time. More recently, the European Union does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over any of the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, in line with international law and with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 497 – and this also applies to the Golan Heights. On 27 March, I issued a declaration on behalf of all the 28 Member States, clarifying that this is the position of the European Union on the status of the Golan Heights. It has always been our position and it has not changed.

In parallel, the five European Union Member States who currently sit in the UN Security Council, which are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium and Poland, expressed this common position in New York in a joint stakeout. So we always ask for the European Union, as Member States, to speak with one voice. This was effectively done in this case, and this is not the only one. I have to say, I want to thank the five Member States that are currently sitting in the UN Security Council, because the practice of coordinating positions – they’re expressing these positions together, including with public press statements done jointly by the five of them, including meetings with myself to coordinate positions of the EU Member States in the Security Council – is more and more often. I think this is also fulfilling the responsibility that we, as Europeans, have to support the multilateral system and the rules-based international order in these times more, in general.

Coming back to our points on the agenda today, the second issue to discuss is the Israeli Government’s settlement policy. I will not comment on the potential policies of a future government that is not even established yet. What I can say is what we are seeing in recent times: over the past months, the Israeli settlement’s construction has continued. Only last week, plans for more than 4600 new housing units were advanced by the Israeli authorities. Right after the announcement, we issued a statement to repeat that we consider all settlement activity illegal under international law, and that settlements erode the viability of the two-state solution. In fact, the two-state solution is not only fading away; it is being dismantled piece by piece. I think it is important for us, the European Union – again, united in this – to say clearly that abandoning the two-state solution would bring greater chaos not only to the Holy Land, but also to the entire Middle East, which is already facing a very difficult situation due to the proliferation of crises we have seen in the region in the last years.

The next escalation of violence in Israel and Palestine could easily spiral out of control, and it would have tragic consequences in a region as unstable as today’s Middle East, not to mention the importance that the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state consequently has for the entire public opinion in the Arab world – again, in a region that has known relevant turmoil in the last years. Our first duty, then, is to keep the two—state perspective alive and to preserve the possibility of new negotiations towards peace to take place. In order to be realistic and successful, any future plan for Israel and Palestine will have to start from the internationally agreed parameters, recognise them, and this includes the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of the two states. On this as well, the European Union has been united and very clear over the years and we will continue to do so.

The European Union will recognise changes to the pre-1967 borders only if and when agreed by the parties, including with regard to Jerusalem. This is a principled position, but it is also based on a realistic assessment of the situation on the ground, because the two-state solution is, first and foremost, essential for peace, but is also essential for security, starting from the security of Israel. It is essential for democracy, both in Israel and in Palestine and it is essential to guarantee a truly sustainable economic growth for both Israelis and Palestinians. And let me add – most importantly, even – it is essential for peace, security and economic growth for the entire region, starting from the neighbouring countries.

If the situation does not improve, it will get worse. That is the reality we have seen in these years, and in these difficult times I believe that keeping this perspective alive is the most courageous and the most fruitful contribution we can do and the best service to peace and stability and security in the region. This is what the European Union will continue to do in the coming months, with all those who are ready to engage towards a just and lasting and sustainable peace.

Starting from our Arab partners, let me say that in the last few months we’ve had the chance of meeting with the leadership of the Arab League countries both in the first-ever European Union League of Arab States summit in Egypt, and, with my participation, the third in a row to the summit of the League of Arab States just a few weeks ago. I can tell you that this position of the European Union on the two-state solution, but also on the Golan Heights, has been probably one of the main elements of discussion and is probably one of the main elements that brings together the Europeans and the Arabs in this difficult moment in our common difficult region. So I’m very much looking forward to continue working together with them on this specific issue that is so important for security and peace in the Mediterranean.

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute représentante, mon groupe s’est opposé à la tenue de ce débat. La position de l’Union européenne concernant le plateau du Golan est très claire: on ne reconnaît pas, conformément aux résolutions 242 et 497 du Conseil de sécurité, la souveraineté d’Israël sur ce territoire. Vous l’avez rappelé vous-même, Madame la Haute représentante, le 27 mars dernier dans vos déclarations.

La décision de l’administration Trump ne changera en rien la situation sur le terrain et la déclaration du 6 avril sur la Cisjordanie a été faite dans le contexte des élections israéliennes.

Ne voyez donc aucune raison de soutenir la stratégie électoraliste de l’extrême gauche de notre Parlement. Notre débat ne fera que nuire à la crédibilité de l’Union européenne comme acteur dans le processus de paix. Mais si on en discute, il faut aussi admettre que l’effondrement de l’État syrien a créé une situation encore plus volatile autour du plateau du Golan. Si l’on veut avoir une approche équilibrée, il faut aussi prendre en compte la sécurité d’Israël face à la prolifération dans la zone des milices chiites, syriennes ou soutenues par l’Iran, comme le Hezbollah.

  Elena Valenciano, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, la verdad es que lo que está sucediendo entre Israel y Palestina, el camino que ha adoptado la Administración Trump tomando de la mano al señor Netanyahu no es ninguna novedad. Está clarísimo lo que están haciendo, aunque al señor Preda le sorprenda.

El problema es qué hacemos nosotros. Por qué seguimos siendo tan tímidos en la denuncia de lo que es, evidentemente, una trasgresión de la legalidad internacional. Lo que nosotros consentimos al Gobierno de Israel y lo que nosotros consentimos en este caso a la Administración norteamericana está fuera de la ley internacional. Y no podemos exigirles a unos que cumplan la ley internacional y a otros permitirles que no la cumplan.

Me da la impresión de que somos demasiado tímidos porque no sabemos cómo hacer para relacionarnos con una Administración norteamericana que es claramente hostil a la Unión Europea.

Creo que una de mis primeras intervenciones en este Pleno fue sobre el conflicto entre Israel y Palestina. Y esta es mi penúltima intervención en el Pleno, y también es sobre un conflicto que está retrocediendo en sus posibilidades de convertirse en un camino de paz, una situación que somos incapaces de gestionar, que produce injusticias enormes y que va a hacer imposible la solución de los dos Estados en términos físicos.

Vamos a seguir reclamando los dos Estados en términos políticos, pero en términos físicos no podremos hacer los dos Estados. Y creo que ya es hora de que levantemos un poco más la voz.

  Bas Belder, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, wie de Golan heeft bezocht, weet hoe cruciaal dit grondgebied is voor de veiligheid van Israël en zijn burgers. Wie de Golan heeft bezocht, weet dat vlakbij, op Syrisch grondgebied, Iran en Hezbollah militair present zijn. Wie Iran en Hezbollah serieus neemt, weet dat de islamitische republiek en haar Libanese terroristische bondgenoot de volledige vernietiging van de Joodse staat beogen. Wie dat werkelijk tot zich laat doordringen, volgt het Amerikaanse voorbeeld van de erkenning van de Golan als Israëlisch grondgebied. En wie dat doet, draagt bij aan de—escalatie in de regio. Want de Israëlische opgave van de Golan zal echt geen vrede brengen met het Syrische schrikbewind. Wie de Golan erkent als Israëlisch grondgebied, heeft ook historisch besef van de eeuwenlange Bijbelse banden van de Golan met het Joodse volk.

Een oproep, mevrouw de Voorzitter, EU, inclusief mijn eigen land, Nederland: stop met een selectieve interpretatie van het internationaal recht en erken de Golan als Israëlisch […], zoals onze bondgenoot – onze bondgenoot, mevrouw Valenciano – de Verenigde Staten, dat doet. Dat zijn bondgenoten.

  Hilde Vautmans, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, ik ben heel erg bezorgd. Ik ben bezorgd over de situatie in Israël. Want ik denk dat we meer en meer signalen ontvangen dat Israël de tweestatenoplossing achter zich laat. Premier Netanyahu wil eigenlijk de soevereiniteit van Israël uitbreiden en de Westelijke Jordaanoever annexeren. We staan, denk ik, echt wel op een heel kritisch punt. Het vredesproces wordt naar mijn gevoel eenzijdig teruggeschroefd. En waar je vroeger toch kon zeggen dat de Verenigde Staten van Amerika meebouwden aan de internationale oplossing, heb ik nu het gevoel dat ze meer en meer de schendingen van het internationaal recht wel accepteren of misschien zelfs zelf begaan.

Vandaar, mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, zou ik je willen vragen om ons standpunt toch duidelijker, nog luider, nog meer te laten horen. We hebben hier over heel wat resoluties gestemd. Het is heel duidelijk: wij kiezen voor de tweestatenoplossing met de grenzen die zijn vastgelegd in 1967, waarbij Israël en Palestina vreedzaam zij aan zij kunnen leven. Eigenlijk zijn we nu aan het wachten op een standpunt van de regering-Trump, die naar wij denken met een nieuw plan gaat komen. Gisteren hebben 37 staats- en regeringsleiders een open brief aan u gericht. Ik denk dat dit een belangrijk signaal is. Een heel erg belangrijk signaal vanuit Europa, waarbij we u heel duidelijk vragen: laat onze stem luider klinken. Laten wij als Europa nog duidelijker zeggen dat er maar één oplossing is. Er is maar één oplossing om uit het conflict te komen en dat is die tweestatenoplossing. Ik vraag u om gehoor te geven aan deze open brief.

  Marisa Matias, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhora Presidente, é verdade que nenhuma destas situações é nova, mas também é verdade que temos assistido a uma escalada que põe cada vez mais em causa o processo de paz no Médio Oriente. É verdade que a anexação de territórios palestinianos já acontece, mas é verdade que ela agora é declarada pelo primeiro-ministro israelita. E a questão é muito simples.

Eu não tenho dúvidas da sua posição, Sra. Mogherini, mas nós temos outros instrumentos e, tendo o reconhecimento do problema tal como existe, o que é que vamos fazer? Quais são as consequências? Porque nós temos outros instrumentos à nossa disposição, existem acordos de associação. Suspendemos ou não suspendemos os acordos de associação?

A defesa das fronteiras de 67, o acordo de paz, é para ficar só nas palavras e no papel, ou é para levar mais a sério? Essa é que é a questão. Nós estamos a dizimar um povo e a pactuar, apesar de não ser essa a posição oficial da União Europeia. E com isto quero terminar.

Sr. Preda, no dia em que os direitos humanos forem invocados como razão eleitoralista estaremos muito mal. Eu não sei como é que o senhor dorme de consciência tranquila. Eu não durmo e acho que é a nossa obrigação defender os direitos humanos, deem eles votos ou não. O senhor, sim, tem uma agenda eleitoralista. A minha agenda é a defesa de direitos humanos.

  Puhemies. – Täällä ei ole tarkoitus huudella toiselle puolelle salia. Täällä voidaan pyytää sinisiä kortteja, mutta koska kukaan ei ole sellaista pyytänyt, niin etenen sitten puheenvuorolistalla.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank High Representative Mogherini for her words and for keeping the EU together and being clear in language.

But, up to now, it has cost Israel nothing to continue its old and illegal occupation – and you know that. We must go now from words to some kind of acts. I would remind you also about the letter – just mentioned yesterday – from former foreign ministers and prime ministers, saying that now something must happen. They refer to UN Resolution 2334 on now taking differentiation. That’s much more than labelling. Still peaceful and legal means, but we cut all connections with illegal settlements – that’s business, education, that’s everything. We now also want the list published of all the businesses working at the settlements. I’m sure that, if there is a price, we will help all our very important friends in Israel, as well as in Palestine, so that they don’t give up hope on the two states and they can still count on us, because words no longer help. You know that as well as I do.

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute représentante, il est vrai que la politique étrangère européenne n’a jamais été aussi éloignée de la politique américaine qu’aujourd’hui. C’est le cas avec le Moyen-Orient, mais pas uniquement. Par exemple, les États-Unis se sont désolidarisés de l’accord iranien que vous avez soutenu, ils se sont également désolidarisés de la COP 21, et quand il s’agit d’Israël, bien entendu, les États-Unis soutiennent la partie la plus extrême du gouvernement israélien, particulièrement en décidant de changer son ambassade vers Jérusalem en la considérant comme étant la capitale. Et maintenant, avec la reconnaissance par les États-Unis de la souveraineté d’Israël sur le Golan, la Maison blanche envoie valser le droit international et les résolutions des Nations unies. Pourtant, la Commission, soutenue par le Conseil, a confirmé hier sa volonté de poursuivre ses négociations commerciales avec les États-Unis, que je considère comme un État voyou qui bafoue ainsi tout multilatéralisme actuel.

Alors que faire? Vous avez, Madame la Haute représentante, utilisé tout ce qui était entre vos mains, la politique, la diplomatie. Mais je pense qu’il y a deux outils qui n’ont pas été activés: ce sont les accords commerciaux et ce sont les accords d’association. Il n’y a que par les sanctions que ces pays, que ces États, pourront réagir demain pour enfin répondre à votre souhait, qui est la solution à deux États. Cette solution est de plus en plus loin aujourd’hui, loin de la politique israélienne qui parle d’annexion, mais loin aussi des Palestiniens qui ont perdu tout espoir. Je pense que l’Europe doit reprendre le flambeau et pouvoir défendre cette solution à deux États.

(L’oratrice accepte de répondre à une question «carton bleu» (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement intérieur))

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), question «carton bleu». – Chère Maria, tu viens de dire que les États-Unis étaient un «État voyou». Ne crois-tu pas que de telles affirmations nuisent profondément à la relation entre l’Europe et les États-Unis? Ne considères-tu pas que l’aile gauche du parti socialiste et l’extrême gauche, qui ont insisté pour que se tienne ce débat, sont aussi responsables de la détérioration de notre entente et des bonnes conditions de travail avec les États-Unis? Jusqu’où irez-vous pour irriter les Américains, chère Maria?

  Maria Arena (S&D), réponse «carton bleu». – Franchement, cher Monsieur Preda, cher Dan, les États-Unis n’ont pas attendu la gauche européenne pour bafouer le droit international.

Quand M. Trump décide de mettre des tarifs sur l’aluminium pour interdire l’exportation d’aluminium aux États-Unis pour des raisons de sécurité, le droit international est bafoué, des accords sont bafoués. Quand les États-Unis reconnaissent le Golan comme étant sous la souveraineté israélienne, des accords sont bafoués. Alors on ne peut pas venir dire que c’est la gauche européenne qui vient aviver la mauvaise entente entre les États-Unis et les Européens. Excuse-moi, mais si tu as envie de t’aplatir devant M. Trump, c’est ton choix, ce n’est pas le choix de la gauche européenne!

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora alta representante, señorías, se puede ser amigo de Israel, pero eso no quiere decir que cada vez que el presidente de los Estados Unidos tiene una nueva ocurrencia, la Unión Europea tenga que salir corriendo a cambiar sus posiciones. Y eso vale, señora presidenta, para el estatuto sobre Jerusalén y la Resolución 478 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, eso vale también para la soberanía sobre los Altos del Golán —Resoluciones 242 y 497—, y eso vale también para la anexión de los asentamientos en Cisjordania.

Estas decisiones unilaterales lo único que hacen es fragmentar y romper el consenso internacional, dificultar el ya de por sí muy complejo proceso de paz en Oriente Próximo y hacer más complicada todavía la doctrina de dos Estados que defiende la Unión Europea, de dos Estados viables que coexistan pacíficamente y en unas condiciones de seguridad a las que aspiran tanto Israel como el pueblo palestino.

  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Hohe Beauftragte! Ich bin der Hohen Beauftragten dankbar und stimme ihr zu, dass Europa nicht den Fehlern des US-Präsidenten Trump folgen darf, internationales Völkerrecht zu brechen und die Golanhöhen anzuerkennen. Mit einem Wahlsieg Netanjahus sind Fortschritte im israelisch-palästinensischen Friedensprozess leider schwer vorstellbar. Der amtierende Ministerpräsident schürt den Konflikt mit seiner Ankündigung, die Annexion von Teilen der Westbank fortzusetzen und auf dem Anspruch auf die Golanhöhen zu bestehen, nachdem er bereits im Wahlkampf die Spaltung des Landes weiter vorangetrieben hat.

Die Europäische Union muss bei diesen Szenarien ihre Außen- und Handelspolitik gegenüber der israelischen Regierung genau auf den Prüfstand stellen. Europa darf für eine auf Dauer angelegte Besatzung oder Annexion nicht zur Verfügung stehen. Die EU hat in der Amtspräsidentschaft von Trump leider die USA als Partner für einen engagierten Friedensprozess mit einer Zweistaatenlösung verloren. Ich bitte jetzt, hier auch klar zu sein in der Frage, dass die Europäische Union am völkerrechtlichen Status quo auch der Botschaften festhalten muss. Europa darf seine Botschaften nicht nach Jerusalem verlegen, wie es die USA getan haben. Hier bitte ich auch die aktuelle Ratspräsidentschaft, an der Seite der Hohen Beauftragten und des Parlaments zu stehen.

  Arne Gericke (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Die ganze biblische Geschichte Israels beruht auf dem Stammland des jüdischen Volkes – „Gottes Segen für das Volk Israel”. Wenn wir nun über die Golanhöhen und die Westbank reden, können wir das nur tun, indem wir die Sicherheitslage Israels berücksichtigen. Doch Europa hat den Iran stark gemacht. Der Iran dringt nach Syrien ein und erhöht das Gesamtrisiko Israels im Golan. Der Schutz von Medina und Mekka ist eine Selbstverständlichkeit, aber wenn es um Israel geht, da reden wir plötzlich eine ganz andere Sprache.

Wir müssen als europäische Partner auf ein Gleichgewicht der Mächte setzen und dem Frieden – und nur dem Frieden für die Region – und den drei zentralen monotheistischen Religionen in der ganzen Welt einen Weg ebnen. Und so gibt es aufgrund der Gesamtsituation nur einen verlässlichen Partner im Nahen Osten: Das ist das Volk der Juden in Israel, der einzige Rechtsstaat dort, der sich schon seit Jahrtausenden an ein Rechtssystem hält, das unserem sehr nahe kommt und was die Sicherheitslage betrifft – hier und dort – uns als sehr gutes Vorbild dienen muss.

UN-Resolutionen gegen Israel entbehren jeglicher Grundlage: Gegen die Vertreibung der Juden aus den achthundertmal größeren arabischen Ländern hat die EU nichts Ähnliches geleistet.

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anche in quest’ultima seduta plenaria ci ritroviamo a discutere dell'appoggio conclamato dell'amministrazione americana ad una violazione del diritto internazionale da parte del governo Netanyahu.

La pretesa di annessione da parte di Israele delle Alture del Golan, un territorio conteso, abitato da 25 000 drusi arabi e da 20 000 coloni israeliani risale al post-1967 e il riconoscimento di una parte della comunità internazionale di questa pretesa e della costruzione di altre colonie in Cisgiordania ci preoccupa. È come se si fosse deciso che la soluzione "due popoli, due Stati" sia ormai una chimera da intellettuali e non, invece, l'unica soluzione praticabile per fermare un conflitto ormai senza fine.

La mia delegazione si schiera per il rispetto del diritto internazionale, per il rispetto dei confini pre-1967 e il riconoscimento dello Stato della Palestina. Ho visto con i miei occhi, nel febbraio del 2016, come intere generazioni di uomini e donne vivono e crescono con la disperazione negli occhi, cacciate dalle loro case e calpestate nei loro diritti fondamentali.

Ringraziamo quegli israeliani che si oppongono a questa deriva autoritaria e illegittima, che schiaccia ed umilia i fratelli palestinesi nella cosiddetta unica democrazia del Medio Oriente. Resistete, per favore, per voi, per la Palestina, ma per il mondo intero.

  Milan Zver (PPE). – Gospa predsednica, torej, mirovni proces je že dalj časa v krizi. Tudi koncept dveh držav oziroma dveh narodov v dveh državah postaja vse manj verjeten in lahko rečem, da se je položaj Izraela v tem kontekstu precej spremenil: ZDA, ameriška vojska je zapustila regijo, Iran je vse bolj agresiven, Izrael ni priznan s strani političnih, ključnih dejavnikov, kot je Hamas, in tako naprej.

Vendarle bi rad apeliral, da Evropska unija mora igrati vseeno bolj proaktivno vlogo v tem procesu. Nikakor pa ne bi smeli dovoliti, da bi na eni strani ZDA podpirali Izrael, Evropska unija pa stala ob strani zgolj Palestini. Evropska unija mora biti ključen dejavnik ali pa med ključnimi dejavniki, torej tudi pogajalec, nikakor pa ne le plačnik.

  Andi Cristea (S&D). – Madam President, this House has the responsibility to keep a balanced approach, especially when we are preparing to enter an electoral campaign. It is a very good thing that we are talking about the Golan Heights this evening, but a debate about the Golan Heights must also refer to the grave security risk Israel confronts in the north. I should name Iranian entrenchment in Syria, Shia militias in Syria and the Hezbollah terror organisation. The EU, in order to keep a balanced approach, must also show commitment to Israel’s security.

Colleagues, correct me if I’m wrong, but I would say that this debate does not serve any purpose, as the situation on the ground is unchanged and the position of the European Union is well known.

  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, dnes počúvame voči štátu Izrael množstvo obvinení a dozvedáme sa z úst našich kolegov a množstvo vyjadrení o hrozných dôsledkoch, ktoré vraj majú izraelské opatrenia na civilné obyvateľstvo. Ja považujem takéto výroky za ideologicky zmanipulované.

Dovoľte mi však povedať dve zásadné otázky k celej veci. Izrael má právo ako legitímny štát, právo brániť sa. Nemôže sa vzdať vzdušenej a pozemnej kontroly jordánskeho údolia a Golanských výšin. Kto ste tam boli, viete, že je to neuralgický bod, odkiaľ môžu rôzne nepriateľsky naladené armády poľahky zaútočiť na štát Izrael, a ťažko by bolo odtiaľ sa brániť. Z nedávnej minulosti vieme o prítomnosti iránskych šiítských milícií v Sýrii a o teroristických operáciách Hizballáhu. Je morálne neprípustné, aby Izrael tieto hrozby ignoroval a nepodnikol žiadne kroky na zabezpečenie svojej bezpečnosti a pokoja pre svojich občanov.

Ohľadom debaty o území Judey a Samárie poviem toľkoto. V prospech izraelskej prítomnosti lepšie hovoria čísla ako politika. Izraelské firmy zamestnávajú viac ako 15 000 Arabov s priemerným platom o 200 % vyšším, ako ponúka palestínska samospráva svojim zamestnancom.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μετά την αναγνώριση της Ιερουσαλήμ ως πρωτεύουσας του Ισραήλ και τη μεταφορά εκεί της αμερικανικής πρεσβείας, αποτελεί πρόκληση πρώτου μεγέθους η αναγνώριση των κατεχόμενων Υψιπέδων του Γκολάν, τα οποία άρπαξε το Ισραήλ από τη Συρία το 1967. Πρόκειται για κινήσεις αναβάθμισης των αμερικανικών συμφερόντων στη Μέση Ανατολή και στη Συρία και στήριξης της εγκληματικής πολιτικής του Ισραήλ έναντι των ανταγωνιστών τους, πρωτίστως της Ρωσίας, για τον έλεγχο των αγορών των πλουτοπαραγωγικών πηγών σε βάρος των λαών της ευρύτερης περιοχής.

Τεράστιες είναι οι ευθύνες και της κυβέρνησης ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ που, με την ανοχή των άλλων αστικών κομμάτων στην Ελλάδα, ξεπλένει τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, το ΝΑΤΟ και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και απορρίπτει προκλητικά την υλοποίηση της απόφασης της Ελληνικής Βουλής για αναγνώριση του παλαιστινιακού κράτους, αναβαθμίζοντας —όπως και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση— τις πολιτικές, οικονομικές και στρατιωτικές σχέσεις του Ισραήλ σαν να μην τρέχει τίποτα. Να σταματήσει, λοιπόν, τώρα η κατοχή του Γκολάν από το Ισραήλ και να δυναμώσει η αλληλεγγύη στον παλαιστινιακό λαό για άμεση αναγνώριση ανεξάρτητου παλαιστινιακού κράτους με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ στα σύνορα του ’67.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, let me restate clearly what I think I’ve already stated several times in this Hemicycle. The European Union sees Israel and the Israelis as partners and friends, it sees the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority as our partners and friends, and we also continue to see our American friends in the United States as our partners and friends.

This doesn’t mean that our positions or our policies are determined elsewhere. Our positions are determined on the basis of the conviction of what we believe is in the best interest of peace and stability in the region – which is also our European region – and on respect for international principles and international laws, and this doesn’t change.

Reaffirming clearly and in a united manner, as you mentioned, our position doesn’t mean being hostile to interlocutors or partners that, in the meantime, might change their position. It means being self-confident about the fact that we’ve always believed – and we continue to believe – that, first, ‘might makes right’ is not a good principle on which to base foreign policy. The idea that you can change borders with the use of military force is a dangerous one – in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is why our position on the Golan Heights has been so clear, because we believe that international rules, international law and international standards must be upheld, and that this is a principle that it is in the interest of everybody to uphold in a very consistent and coherent manner.

If you think of the situation in the Middle East, but also if you think of the situation in Europe or elsewhere, international law affirms it very clearly: borders cannot be changed by military force and this is a principle behind which the European Union will continue to firmly stand in a united manner.

I think this unity and this clarity together have made us relevant in upholding a principle and a situation in very difficult circumstances. The image I have in my mind at this moment when I think of the Middle East, where you actually do not have a process at all – it’s not that the process is stuck, you do not have a peace process currently – the image I have in my mind is that of – I don’t know if this is an English expression, but in Italian we say ‘put your foot in the door to avoid it banging’. It doesn’t mean opening the door wide and it doesn’t mean being able to restart a peace process.

To tell you the truth, to start a peace process that is consistent today we would need to have an international and regional consensus on the parameters – on the need to have a two-state solution – and you would need to have political will on the two sides and also in Washington. On the European side, it’s full and it’s clear.

What we have to avoid today, together with our partners in the region, starting with the Arab countries – and I think in particular of Egypt that has such an important role both in the Arab League but also on Gaza, and of Jordan that has such an important role on the holy places – what we have to avoid is that this trend continues, consolidates and becomes irreversible to a point where, as Elena Valenciano mentioned, the two—state solution becomes impossible, and avoid that the dismantling of the two—state solution gets to the impossibility of achieving it whenever the political will is there.

I know that this is a minimal approach, but you have to be pragmatic and realistic when dealing with foreign policy. I remember that very well. When I started my mandate, my first visit was to Israel and Palestine. I said back then – almost five years ago, four—and-a—half years ago – that it is possible to solve this conflict, and it is true. I still believe it because the international parameters are clear, but without the political will of the parties and without international consensus – which we don’t have at the moment – on those international parameters, I do not see this process producing an outcome in terms of a two-state solution. We Europeans know very well that if it’s not going to be a two-state solution, it’s not going to be a solution. I believe that the Israelis know that perfectly well, the Palestinians know it perfectly well and the region knows it perfectly well.

So I believe that, as friends of Israel, as friends of Palestine, and as friends of the region – let me also refer to the Arab Peace Initiative that I still consider a good basis for negotiations – the European Union is convinced, and will continue to be united and clear on this conviction, that it is in the interest of the Israelis, the Palestinians and the region to continue to have in mind a two—state objective and a two—state solution. That is also vital. I would like to say this very clearly for those in the Hemicycle who have raised this. It is also vital for the security of Israelis and of Israel as such.

I think I will stop here on this point. I am looking forward to the continuation of our debates on the next points.

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Péter Niedermüller (S&D), írásban. – Ennek a mai vitának nincs sok értelme. Legfeljebb arra lehet „használni”, hogy azok, akik ebben érdekeltek tovább szítsák az Izrael ellenes hangulatot. Hiszen a politikai, katonai helyzet nem változott, az EU álláspontja az izraeli-palesztin viszonyt, illetve a Golant illetően jól ismert. Az is tudjuk, hogy Donald Trump elsősorban azért ismerte el Izrael fennhatóságát a Golan felett, mert segíteni akarta Netanyahu választási kampányát. Izrael helyzetén azonban ezzel nem sokat segített. Ugyanakkor mindannyian tudjuk, nem lehet a Golanról úgy vitatkozni, hogy nem vesszük figyelembe Izrael saját biztonságával kapcsolatos jogos elvárásait. Minden ország, minden nemzet számára elsődleges kötelesség polgárai biztonságáról gondoskodni. Így van ez Izrael esetében is, amelynek északi határai különösen sérülékenyek. Iráni jelenlét Szíriában, a Hezbollah terrorakciói, hogy csak néhány példát említsek. Ha ezeket a szempontokat nem vesszük figyelembe, akkor csak egyoldalú álvitát folytatunk. Mint ahogy sehova nem vezető álvita az a követelés is, hogy a béke előfeltétele az 1967 előtti határokhoz való visszatérés. Az ilyen viták, mint ez a mai csak arra jók, hogy ne kelljen szembenézni a politikai realitásokkal, ne kelljen innovatív új megoldásokat keresni. Mindez nem jelenti azt, hogy ne kellene demokratikus megoldást találni a palesztin problémára. De a megoldáshoz nem az ilyen értelmetlen viták vezetnek.