Volledige tekst 
XML 60k
Dinsdag 11 februari 2020 - Straatsburg Herziene uitgave

10. Het plan van de VS voor het Midden-Oosten: EU-respons in overeenstemming met het internationaal recht (debat)
Video van de redevoeringen

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Vizepräsidenten der Kommission und Hohen Vertreters der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zum Plan der USA für den Nahen Osten: Reaktion der EU im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht (2020/2559(RSP)).

Ich möchte Sie auch daran erinnern – während der Kommissar auf Wanderschaft ist –, dass Sie spontane Wortmeldungen und Wortmeldungen nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ sowohl auf herkömmliche Weise als auch elektronisch beantragen können. Die Anleitung finden Sie am Eingang zum Plenarsaal.


  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I am really grateful for having this opportunity to address you today on the Middle East peace process. This issue is of fundamental strategic importance to the European Union. For too long, we have been witnessing a conflict that has caused endless suffering for generations of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The increasingly dire situation on the ground, including violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion – illegal, by the way – and the consequences of the ongoing occupation, has destroyed hope on both sides and reduced the viability of a two-state solution.

At an international level for a number of years there has been little or no substantive engagement in efforts to resolve the conflict. Indeed, as one observer pointed out to me recently, there is neither peace nor a process. In recent years, we on the European Union side are perhaps the only actor who has stayed the course. We have been vocal in our support for a negotiated two-state solution based on the internationally agreed parameters and in accordance with international law. This means a two-state solution based on the parameters set in the Council Conclusions – our Council – of July 2014, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues in order to end the conflict.

Our vision, our European vision, is a principled one and a pragmatic one. It reflects our broader attachment as Europeans to the rules-based international order. We are also active on the ground. No other international actor has been as engaged as we have been in practical efforts to build a future Palestinian state. In 2019 alone, the European Union and its Member States had an open portfolio of some 600 million in assistance to the Palestinians. I said during my hearing: it means – 600 million is almost EUR 1.5 million a day.

Where are we today? It remains my firm view that there is still a way forward if both parties are willing to resume credible and meaningful negotiations. International support for any such efforts would clearly be crucial to their success. In this regard, the tabling of concrete proposals, such as the United States one, could be helpful, both as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the way forward and as a potential opportunity to quick-start a political process which has been at a standstill for too long.

However, as I have said, the proposal tabled two weeks ago clearly challenges the internationally-agreed parameters, and it is difficult to see how this initiative can bring both parties back to the table. 25 out of 27 Member States in the Foreign Affairs Council supported this consideration. Two were against, so it was not a unanimous decision of the Council and I could not present it like this, but as a statement of the High Representative, which I am repeating here again.

Last week I was in Washington; they were very busy days, talking with all foreign affairs external policy higher authorities of the US Government. I put this point to my interlocutors. We need to ask ourselves whether this plan provides a basis for progress or not. We need to know whether the proposals themselves are really open for negotiation. Is it the starting point, or the end point? For the European Union’s part, our position is clear. We are ready to work with the international community to revive a political process in line with international law, which ensures equal rights and which is acceptable to both parties. Thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to an important discussion, which I’m sure will follow.


  Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would say the following to Mr Borrell.

Mr Borrell, you stated that the United States Middle East peace plan departs from internationally agreed parameters. You also used rather pointed language originally when you said that part of this plan, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged. Naturally this evoked a reaction from our Israeli friends, who warned that this type of – what they called – ‘threatening’ language could lead to the EU’s role in the peace process being minimised. Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership has angrily dismissed President Trump’s plan as a conspiracy.

I think it’s frankly unreasonable to expect that either side would greet this proposal with any real enthusiasm, but I would like to choose to view the glass as half full and not half empty. So this plan could perhaps serve as a basis for resuming talks in earnest with the understanding that there are, in fact, painful concessions to be made on both sides. This is your moment to shine, Mr Borrell. Europe could perhaps assume a much more prominent role, an active role, as an honest broker of just and lasting peace. It could encourage both sides to consider the plan as a starting point for reopening meaningful goodwill negotiations.


  Kati Piri, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we do not know what President Trump’s deal of the century actually is apart from being one-sided, illegal and intentionally provocative, but it is most certainly not a genuine effort at finding a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Let me be clear, negotiations between Israel and Palestine were broken off in 2014 and must be resumed as soon as possible. But that is not what this plan will lead to. This plan disregards the international rules-based order. It not only normalises illegal settlements but also clears the way for the utterly illegitimate annexation of the Jordan Valley and 30% of the West Bank. We must make clear that such actions will have serious consequences for our relationship with Israel if that happens. Inevitably, it will also lead to more suffering for the Palestinian people, whether that is because their land is annexed, their water resources are taken or because they lack control over their own borders. This is a cynical plan of two far-right leaders seeking a cheap popularity boost ahead of elections. This is a slap in the face of Israelis and Palestinians who genuinely want to find a solution. I therefore call on you, Mr High Representative, to continue supporting all efforts that truly involve both parties. The people of Israel and Palestine need a real peace plan and if we, as Europeans, can play a constructive role in that, we should do so.


  Hilde Vautmans, namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, geachte hoge vertegenwoordiger, wij zijn de afgelopen weken weer eens meegezogen in een Trumpiaanse rabbit hole: een tweestatenoplossing voor Israël en Palestina, met alle voordelen voor Israël en de kruimels voor de Palestijnen. Trumps plan was eigenlijk niet meer dan een eenstaatplan voor Israël, vermomd als tweestatenoplossing. Een gemiste kans, zou je zeggen, ware het niet dat Trumps voorstel de fragiele relatie tussen Israël en Palestina nu helemaal heeft doen afspringen.

Daarom, mijnheer Borrell, is er meer dan ooit een rol voor de Europese Unie weggelegd. Amerika heeft de voorbije jaren veel te eenzijdig de Israëlische kaart getrokken. De geloofwaardigheid van de VS in het Midden-Oosten ligt aan diggelen. Een geloofwaardigheid die u, die Europa nog wel heeft. Gebruik deze geloofwaardigheid dus, door op te treden als onpartijdige partner, als honest broker, om als het ware de door Trump gemaakte brokken te lijmen, zodat Israël en Palestina opnieuw aan tafel gaan of zodat er op zijn minst indirecte onderhandelingen kunnen plaatsvinden.

En laten wij duidelijk maken dat onze Europese rode lijnen breed gedragen zijn door de internationale gemeenschap. Ik denk, meneer Borrell, dat een internationale vredesconferentie op hoog niveau waarvan u de leiding neemt, de weg vooruit is. Onze steun heeft u alvast.


  Anna Bonfrisco, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, egregio Vicepresidente e anche Alto rappresentante, questa è una discussione particolarmente delicata. Come Unione europea abbiamo l'obbligo di chiarire la nostra posizione, soprattutto perché Belgio, Estonia e Germania, come membri non permanenti, stanno affiancando la Francia nel Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Essendo poi avvenuta la Brexit, siamo chiamati a esercitare un'azione di politica estera che sia allo stesso tempo nuova e prospettica, in una geopolitica da XXI secolo, che passa dalla tutela della sicurezza europea, dal grande tema dell'immigrazione, dall'energia, dal cambiamento climatico, dal 5G fino agli investimenti europei in quei paesi.

Il trattato di Lisbona le attribuisce la promozione della pace e della sicurezza nel mondo. E per questo, con riguardo al Medio Oriente, la invito a considerare principalmente tre elementi: la minaccia esistenziale allo Stato di Israele è viva più che mai, e questo è inaccettabile. Israele è primariamente uno Stato nazione ebraico. Noi europei, nella nostra radice più profonda, siamo ebrei. Non perda, signor Alto rappresentante, la sua più importante occasione di dimostrare da che parte sta l'Europa.


  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, a great number of victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have long been languishing for a peace plan. Such a peace plan must, of course, include painful concessions, but concessions from both sides. It must include security for Israel, but it must also include a viable sovereign, contiguous state for the Palestinians living side by side with the Israelis.

This is not what Trump is presenting to us. It’s not a fresh start, it’s a dead end. The so—called peace plan is neither about peace, because it doesn’t overcome it prolongs the conflict, nor is it a plan as a point of departure for negotiations. It’s rather a dictate. When they talk about a peace plan they are effectively pushing for annexation – and a two-state solution is different from one state plus one canton. We cannot …

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Charlie Weimers, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, High Representative Mr Borrell, you called on both sides to reengage and refrain from any unilateral actions that would exacerbate tensions. This is a peace plan widely accepted in Israel, but fully rejected on the Palestinian side. Fine, but Palestinians will not even sit down at the table. Many in the Palestinian population prefer violence.

In fact, last month, Palestinian NGOs refused EU funding rules prohibiting our aid to be channelled to terrorist groups. In their refusal, these NGOs, 70% funded by the EU, are calling what they believe to be your bluff. High Representative, show them that the EU means business; encourage long-term re-engagement and easing of tensions; say a thousand times: no, no, no to EU funding Palestinian rejectionist and terrorist policies.

(Applause from certain quarters)


  Manu Pineda, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, el tándem Trump-Netanyahu, en un alarde de cinismo sin precedentes, ha presentado lo que ellos han calificado como el «gran acuerdo del siglo». Pero no es legítimo hablar de acuerdo cuando una de las partes afectadas, el pueblo palestino, ni ha sido consultado ni ha firmado ningún tipo de pacto.

Esta parodia no es legal, porque vulnera el Derecho internacional e infinidad de resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Así que, si esto ni es acuerdo, ni es legal, ni es legítimo, no se puede llamar el «gran acuerdo del siglo». Podríamos llamarlo la «gran estafa del siglo», que tiene como objetivo acabar con el pueblo palestino y, además, tapar las vergüenzas de dos criminales perseguidos en sus distintos países. Podríamos hablar de eso y sería más acertado.

El señor Borrell hizo recientemente un pronunciamiento que me parece que es excelente, y quiero desde aquí felicitarle y agradecérselo. Pero creo que es el momento, señor Borrell, de pasar a los hechos. Es necesario su pronunciamiento, pero es necesario que en un momento como este la Unión Europea rompa el Acuerdo de Asociación con Israel y reconozca al Estado... (el presidente retira la palabra al orador).


  Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Mr President, each and every force in this world is more than welcome if this force puts a proposal for a solution on the table, especially when it’s a proposal for a solution with the objective of a two states perspective in it – a two states solution in the end.

The EU has not contributed much with a concrete proposal in the past, so we should deal with the proposal from the United States constructively. The EU is contributing a lot in terms of development aid and other terms, but has not proposed anything in the past, so let’s deal constructively with the US proposal. If somebody reacts with violence to a solution proposal, this is not a reliable partner, and reaction with violence in the past has been wrong. Dear Commissioner, take that into consideration in order to deal constructively with the US proposal and in order to be connected with the values of the pro-western powers in this world.

(Applause from certain quarters)


  Sven Mikser (S&D). – Mr President, it is hard to regard the most recent US peace plan as credible since it does not meet the principal parameters for peace. It is not fair and even-handed, it does not follow the basic principles of international law and its drafters only managed to engage one of the two parties to the conflict.

Whatever domestic political ends in the US or in Israel the plan’s launch may have served, its chances of revitalising the peace process are, unfortunately, virtually non-existent. Moreover, if Israel, following Palestinian rejection of the plan, were to restart settlement activity or go on to annex parts of the occupied territories, it may be entirely counterproductive to sustainable peace and eventually prove detrimental to the two- state solution altogether. The EU must stick to its principal position of holding firm to international law. We must continue to uphold the position that only a negotiated two-state solution can, in a sustainable manner, address the legitimate Israeli security concerns and deliver a Palestinian statehood.

But, in addition to having a clear and principled understanding of where we need to be at the end of the process, the EU also needs a credible plan of its own on how to get there from where we are today. This is ever more critical as the US appears to be abandoning its role as an even-handed broker.


  Bernard Guetta (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, comme il a tort! Comme M. Trump se trompe avec ce plan de paix qui n’en a que le nom, car enfin la paix, Monsieur le Président, n’est pas seulement celle des rapports de force. La paix, Monsieur le Président, doit être fondée sur assez d’équité pour assurer un avenir d’entente et non pas seulement de coexistence.

Entre Israël et la Palestine, il n’y aura de paix durable et vraie qu’à cette condition: l’équité. Et ce n’est pas elle que vous proposez. Alors, nous ne vous appuierons pas, nous ne vous suivrons pas, mais continuerons à dire à nos voisins et amis israéliens et palestiniens que Jérusalem doit être la capitale partagée de deux peuples égaux en dignité, sécurité et bien-être. Les aveugles diront que ce n’est plus possible, car les faits accomplis primeraient. Mais le réalisme, le vrai, commande de s’en tenir à l’utopie de la justice, celle qui, toujours, finit et doit finir par triompher.


  Jaak Madison (ID). – Mr President, first of all I think it’s a very important debate because in the last weeks it has been the main topic in the media – a peace plan by the US in the Middle East. First of all, I think it’s very important for the European Union to understand international law, because in international law we have to understand that it has to be respected on both sides, by Israel and also by Palestine.

From the Palestinian side, we have to recognise that they haven’t really understood the meaning of international law – that you can’t support terrorist organisations against Israel. You can’t support the way you’re using your children, how you’re using them like bombing attacks against neighbouring countries. So in this case I think Palestine is really breaking international law, something we have to also recognise.

The second thing is there have been many critics against the US about this peace plan, but I’ve never heard of any other solution or any other plan for the Middle East, so I really want ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Hr. formand! Tak til hr. Borrell for den klare erklæring om Israels ulovlige besættelse af Palæstina. De har både ret og pligt til at sige sådan, uanset hvad for eksempel Ungarn måtte mene. Hvis EU passivt lader Israels besættelse ekspandere, bryder vi ikke bare FN’s, men også vore egne love. Jeg vil imidlertid godt vide, hvad der konkret menes med, at annekteringer ikke vil forblive "unchallenged". Forhåbentlig at EU omsider reagerer med handling, ikke kun med ord.

I 2016 vedtog FN’s sikkerhedsråd resolution 2334. Den omfatter også "differentiation", altså en adskillelse mellem Israel og bosættelserne. Vi bør derfor gøre "differentiation" til EU’s styrende princip og stoppe al samkvem med bosættelserne om handel, økonomi, kultur osv. Og så har vores høje repræsentant myndighed til ikke blot at fordømme Israels ødelæggelse af EU’s betalte projekter, til at lindre palæstinensernes liv, men også til at kræve kompensation. Israel har ødelagt for millioner. De penge skal tilbage til EU’s skatteborgere. Men tak for indsatsen indtil nu.


  Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, wij kunnen natuurlijk van alles vinden van het vredesplan en op allerlei onderdelen kritiek gaan leveren. Maar laten wij dat vandaag alstublieft niet doen. Dat brengt het vredesproces echt geen stap verder. De meerwaarde van het plan is nu juist dat er tenminste iets op tafel ligt. Laten we dat dan ook een eerlijke kans geven.

Ik heb eigenlijk maar een oproep aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit: stop met het in bescherming nemen van terroristen, erken de staat Israël en ga rond de tafel zitten, ga praten.

Ik neem nadrukkelijk afstand van de verklaring van de hoge vertegenwoordiger. U komt in uw verklaring van 4 februari niet verder dan Israël en de Verenigde Staten te bekritiseren, waarmee u feitelijk tegen Abbas zegt: “Ik kan heel goed begrijpen dat u niet gaat onderhandelen, ik zou het zelf ook niet doen.”

Ik vind dat een verkeerde boodschap op het verkeerde moment. Ten onrechte heeft u deze verklaring geuit als een verklaring namens de Europese Unie. Als ergens geen unanimiteit over bestaat in de Raad, kunt u niet namens de EU een standpunt uitdragen!


  Niyazi Kizilyürek (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the so-called ‘deal of the century’ is a plain violation of international law. It was prepared without consulting one of the parties concerned – the Palestinians – and it tends to legitimise illegal Israeli settlements, which is a crime of war.

It rolls back from the agreements of 1967 and denies Palestinians issue to Jerusalem as their capital. I regret to say that Trump’s plan is not only an assault on Palestinian rights, but also an attempt to put forward a new regional order that completely undermines international law. It is a deal which can harm the whole region and is not less unacceptable and not less dangerous than the colonialist Sykes—Picot Agreement from 1916.

In an era of chaotic international relations, the EU must stand firm and continue to support the two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Furthermore, the EU should make a stand against Israeli settlements which violate the relevant UN resolutions and show support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.


  Evin Incir (S&D). – Herr talman! Jag vägrar att kalla Trumps förslag för en fredsplan, som vissa vill göra, för det enda förslaget är en plan på, det är hur Trump ska säkra sin valvinst i november i USA och hur han ska säkra sin vän Netanyahus valvinst i det israeliska valet. Planen går stick i stäv med internationell rätt, ger grönt ljus för annektering av ännu mer palestinsk mark och omöjliggör möjligheten till en tvåstatslösning där två demokratiska stater – Israel och Palestina – samexisterar sida vid sida i fred och säkerhet.

I en tid där USA inte längre respekterar internationell rätt gäller det att EU nu visar att vi inte bara pratar om våra grundläggande värderingar, utan att vi också kämpar för dem, oavsett var i världen orättvisor dyker upp.

Det palestinska folket och det israeliska folket förtjänar båda sina respektive stater. Tiden är nu inne för att alla EU länder ska erkänna Palestina enligt 1967 års gränser. Det gjorde min svenska regering 2014, vilket jag är stolt över.

Min fråga till den höga representanten är därför: Hur kommer kommissionen konkret att agera för att internationell rätt ska respekteras?


  Nicolaus Fest (ID). – Herr Präsident! Als ich zur Grundschule ging, stand über dem Gebiet von Ostdeutschland, also dem der ehemaligen DDR, die Zeile: „Zurzeit unter sowjetischer Verwaltung“, und bei den weiter östlichen Gebieten Pommern und Schlesien stand „Zurzeit unter polnischer Verwaltung“. Das war eine der großen Lebenslügen der Nachkriegszeit: der Glaube, dass die im Krieg verloren gegangenen Gebiete jemals zurückkommen würden. Erst Willy Brandt hat mit dieser Lüge Schluss gemacht.

Eine ähnliche Lüge herrscht seit 53 Jahren in Bezug auf Gaza und Westjordanland. Beide Areale gingen den Arabern verloren, weil sie Kriege gegen Israel verloren. Wenn man einen Krieg beginnt, muss man damit rechnen.

Die Zweistaatenlösung von 1967 ist die große Lebenslüge der UN, und sie ist auch die große Lebenslüge der EU. Präsident Trumps Friedensplan ist keineswegs ideal, aber er bringt immerhin Bewegung in eine völlig festgefahrene Situation. Seit mehr als 50 Jahren sind Gaza und Westjordanland Konfliktzonen. Wollen wir also weiter an einer Lebenslüge festhalten? Der Friedensplan der UN von 1967 mit der Zweistaatenlösung: funktionieren – das tut er nicht.


  Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, le plan pour le Moyen-Orient de l’administration Trump est un pas en arrière dangereux et une étape de plus dans la négation du droit international. Ce n’est pas un accord, mais la validation de la politique du fait accompli d’Israël. Une vision unilatérale du conflit que vous avez le mérite, Monsieur Borrell, d’avoir condamnée.

On se contente décidément de bien peu face à la gravité des faits. Puisque les États membres sont incapables d’unanimité pour appeler au respect des résolutions des Nations unies, faisons respecter le droit avec les moyens qui sont les nôtres. D’abord, exigeons d’Israël qu’il compense ou restitue ces destructions de projets financés par l’Union. Pas moins de 97 structures sont concernées, pour une valeur de 500 000 euros en 2019. Approfondissons la politique de différenciation entre les frontières internationales reconnues d’Israël et les colonies. Condamnons clairement l’institutionnalisation des discriminations. Enfin, j’allais dire, et surtout, remettons sur la table, comme le demandent les Palestiniens, une conférence internationale pour la paix au Moyen-Orient.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Spoštovani gospod predsednik, Trumpov tako imenovani mirovni načrt za Bližnji vzhod je prevara, je umazana igra in je udarec mednarodnemu pravu proti prizadevanjem pri iskanju mirovne rešitve za enega najbolj perečih vprašanj Bližnjega vzhoda. Miru, zato ne bo.

Načrt ameriškega predsednika je še en korak na poti do uveljavitve popolnega apartheid režima, ki ga Izrael že izvaja nad Palestinci in v praksi povsem onemogoča vzpostavitev suverene in sploh mogoče palestinske države. Trump se očitno ne zaveda, da miru na Bližnjem vhodu, predvsem za Izrael, ne bo mogoče doseči brez rešitve izraelsko-palestinskega konflikta. Zato vas, spoštovani Borell, podpiram pri vztrajanju pri mednarodnem pravu in boju proti nezakoniti priključitvi Zahodnega brega in doline reke Jordan Izraelu.

Evropa bi morala takoj prepovedati uvoz izdelkov, proizvedenih v nezakonitih judovskih naselbinah, ter ustaviti vse evropske investicije. Izraelski dostop do programov Unije pa nujno pogojiti z napredkom v mirovnem procesu.


  Laura Huhtasaari (ID). – Mr President, the 1967 Israeli border is not realistic anymore, because the circumstances in the region have changed completely in the past 50 years. The Americans have promised to invest USD 50 billion in the Palestinian state if Trump’s Israeli–Palestinian peace plan is implemented. Israel will also commit not to build any new settlements for the next four years. At the same time, this treaty will safeguard the security of the State of Israel.

The EU should support this plan. This could be the last chance to achieve lasting peace after many decades of violence. It is time to put an end to this pro-launch and hard conflict. The EU should not object to this deal because the EU hates Trump.


  Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, el plan de Trump supone una voladura del consenso internacional sobre el conflicto israelopalestino. Está basado en la unilateralidad, en la anexión, en la desigualdad de derechos, en el desprecio del Derecho internacional y provocará una ocupación perpetua y un conflicto permanente. Como decía mi colega anteriormente, no es un plan de paz, es un dictado.

Ante ello, quiero agradecer el comunicado valiente del alto representante sobre la materia y también decir que es el momento de defender los consensos básicos internacionales en materia de este conflicto: que queremos un proceso político negociado, una solución de dos Estados, el respeto del Derecho internacional y la igualdad de derechos. Y para ello creo que los Estados miembros, para mantener y seguir manteniendo viva la esperanza de una solución con dos Estados, deben empezar a considerar seriamente el reconocimiento de Palestina como Estado para hacer que ello sea posible.

Y, finalmente, quisiera pedir al alto representante —y eso es muy importante en estos momentos— que la política de diferenciación entre las fronteras del 67 y las anexiones ilegales de territorio por parte de Israel sea mantenida por parte de la Unión Europea.


  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi unisco a molti colleghi nel condannare e rigettare fermamente il piano proposto da Trump per la soluzione della questione israelo-palestinese, un puro atto di propaganda elettorale a favore di Netanyahu, il quale da mesi cerca di recuperare una solida maggioranza e sviare l'attenzione dai suoi processi per corruzione, e un atto di propaganda per Trump stesso, che cerca di mostrarsi un leader mondiale di grande influenza.

Il piano è inaccettabile. Nessuna consultazione dei palestinesi, l'annessione della Cisgiordania, Gerusalemme capitale esclusiva di Israele: questi sono solo alcuni punti dell'accordo che viola il diritto internazionale praticamente in ogni modo possibile.

Penso che abbia fatto bene, quindi, signor Alto rappresentante a rigettarlo con fermezza e ribadire la posizione europea per una soluzione a due Stati sulla base dei confini del '67. Ha fatto bene ad avvertire che qualsiasi atto di annessione avrà gravi conseguenze. È ora di cominciare a dirlo, non può l'Europa essere condiscendente. Noi non staremo mai in silenzio davanti alla negazione della storia e del diritto internazionale.


  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, nijedan mirovni plan ne može uspjeti ako nema podršku svih sukobljenih strana, a način na koji je objavljen ovaj plan najviše govori o političkim slabostima dvojice lidera koji su ga predstavili.

Plan je izraz unilateralne politike trenutne američke administracije i kroničnog odbacivanja multilateralizma. Sjetimo se Pariškog sporazuma, odnosa prema Kurdima, uloge u Siriji, sporazuma s Iranom. Određeni elementi koji su predstavljeni kao veliki ustupci zapravo su već dogovoreni tijekom ranijih pregovora i pokušaja pronalaska rješenja. Posebno zabrinjavaju dijelovi plana koji se odnose na Jordansku dolinu i dijelove Zapadne obale.

Ovaj prijedlog samo demonstrira dubinu razlika između suprotstavljenih dionika. Svi uključeni trebaju se suzdržati od jednostranih poteza i iskreno se uključiti u istinske pregovore o pronalasku trajnog rješenja, a ono je dvije neovisne, demokratski konsolidirane suverene države, koje će omogućiti miran i siguran suživot ljudi s obje strane granice. Takvo rješenje mora, naravno, biti utemeljeno na međunarodnom pravu.


Spontane Wortmeldungen


  Milan Zver (PPE). – Gospod predsednik, pozdravljam Trumpov bližnjevzhodni mirovni predlog, predvsem zaradi tega, ker je uravnotežen, nekaj dobijo Izraelci, zagotovilo za mir in varnost, nekaj pa tudi Palestinci, in to svojo državo.

Demokratske države so več ali manj ta predlog podprle, vse tiste druge, ki to niso, pa so ga zavrnile skupaj s Palestinci, ki jim očitno ta status quo ustreza in nočejo miru. Tudi Iran je to zavrnil, ta predlog. Vprašal bi gospoda Borella, ki je nedavno bil v Iranu, ali ste se z oblastmi v Iranu pogovarjali o tem predlogu? In drugič, ali ste režim opozorili na drastične kršitve človekovih pravic v tej državi? In pa tretjič, zakaj ste sploh bili tam glede na to, da samo pomagate legitimirati režim, ki drastično krši človekove pravice?


  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor alto representante, Josep Borrell. Yo respaldo el comunicado que ha emitido. Me parece importante también en términos procedimentales para superar los bloqueos que se dan a menudo en el Consejo por solamente uno o dos países. Y sobre la materia, que es la propuesta de paz del presidente Trump, no voy a repetir lo que ha dicho usted y lo que ha dicho la mayoría de los oradores sobre los problemas que presenta y que, por tanto, es impracticable.

Pero, también, algunas señorías han aludido a la necesidad de que haya una alternativa europea. Si bien no una propuesta detallada como la que ha presentado el señor Trump, quizás algún tipo de iniciativa procedimental en el sentido de una nueva conferencia de paz sobre Oriente Medio —como la que en su día tuvo lugar en Madrid en el año 1991— y, si no es posible en este momento, empezar a trabajar para que se den las condiciones para que se pueda realizar.


  Nicolae Ştefănuță (Renew). – Domnule președinte, domnule Înalt Reprezentant Borrell, în ultimele decenii de negocieri pentru pace în regiune, întreaga comunitate internațională a afirmat importanța promovării unui plan bazat pe principiile dreptului internațional. Orice plan de pace este binevenit, atât timp cât este în conformitate cu aceste principii, este incluziv și propune existența a două state, două state pentru două popoare, care să coexiste în pace și în securitate. În lipsa unui astfel de plan, status quo-ul actual se va menține, din păcate. Nu putem grăbi oportunist ceea ce pentru decenii a trenat în durere. De aceea, vreau să menționez ideea colegei Vautmans, potrivit căreia o conferință de pace multilaterală, care să asigure un format incluziv, unde să fim și noi la masă, este direcția în care trebuie să mergem.


  Beata Kempa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Przysłuchiwałam się dzisiaj tej debacie: z jednej strony zwolennicy planu pana prezydenta Trumpa, a z drugiej strony przeciwnicy tego planu. Bardzo mało konkretów, a tam rozgrywają się dramaty. Każdy, kto był chociażby w Jerozolimie, rozmawiał, wie, że tych dramatów jest bardzo wiele i że tak naprawdę dorasta nowe pokolenie, które znowu możemy nazwać pokoleniem straconym, bo jest przygotowywane do tego, jak ze sobą walczyć, a nie jak ze sobą współistnieć po obu stronach.

Panie Przedstawicielu, Pan powiedział, że odbył Pan bardzo wiele rozmów z partnerami w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Proszę powiedzieć, z kim Pan odbył te rozmowy i jakie są konkluzje tych rozmów. Plan konstruktywny jest bardzo potrzebny. Każdy, kto o takim planie myśli i przedstawia konstrukcje, propozycje, może nas przybliżyć wreszcie do tego, żeby w tym regionie nastąpił pokój. Dlatego myślę Panie Przedstawicielu, że... (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)


  Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, YK on todennut moneen kertaan, että miehitetyille alueille siirtokuntien rakentaminen on kansainvälisen oikeuden mukaan laitonta. Siten USA:n esittämä malli on kansainvälisen oikeuden näkökulmasta täysin kestämätön. Se on myös täysin vastoin kahden valtion periaatetta – sitä mallia, joka takaisi myös palestiinalaisille oman valtion. Mikä ikinä onkaan se malli, jolla tälle alueelle saadaan rauha, sen on taattava palestiinalaisille oma valtio, täysi vapaus ja täysi oikeus saada päättää itse omista asioistaan.

Tämä Trumpin ”rauhanratkaisumalli” on aivan muuta. Se antaa Israelille hedelmälliset viljelymaat ja palestiinalaisille aavikkoa. Se pirstaloi palestiinalaisalueet siten, että palestiinalaiset ovat jatkuvasti alisteisia Israelin kontrollille. Trumpin ehdotus on luultavasti huonoin koskaan tehty esitys saada rauha tälle alueelle. Toivon, että korkea edustaja aloittaisi proaktiivisen toiminnan saadakseen israelilaiset ja palestiinalaiset saman pöydän ääreen käymään neuvotteluja, jotta alueelle saadaan aito kahteen valtioon perustuva rauhan malli.


  Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταδικάζουμε το απαράδεκτο σχέδιο των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών για το Παλαιστινιακό, που διαιωνίζει και θωρακίζει την ισραηλινή κατοχή. Η προωθούμενη συμφωνία εντάσσεται στους ιμπεριαλιστικούς σχεδιασμούς των ΗΠΑ στην ευρύτερη περιοχή. Προβλέπει παραχώρηση της Ιερουσαλήμ στο Ισραήλ, προσάρτηση της κοιλάδας του Ιορδάνη και διατήρηση των εποικισμών. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι κυβερνήσεις της —και οι ελληνικές κυβερνήσεις της Νέας Δημοκρατίας και του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ— έχουν πάρα πολύ βαριές ευθύνες. Κρατούν ίσες αποστάσεις μεταξύ θύτη και θύματος· επέκτειναν και αναβαθμίζουν συνεχώς την πολιτική, οικονομική και στρατιωτική συνεργασία με το ισραηλινό κράτος.

Η τοποθέτηση του κυρίου Borrell, που βρίσκει την πρόταση Trump συγκεκριμένη και βοηθητική, επί της ουσίας έρχεται σε αντίθεση με τα συμφέροντα του παλαιστινιακού λαού. Παράλληλα, εάν η θέση που εξέφρασε η κυρία Ασημακοπούλου είναι και θέση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, τότε είναι και απαράδεκτη και επικίνδυνη. Τέτοιες τοποθετήσεις αποκαλύπτουν τους λόγους για τους οποίους δεν τίθενται σε εφαρμογή οι αποφάσεις κοινοβουλίων που έχουν αναγνωρίσει το ανεξάρτητο παλαιστινιακό κράτος.

Υποστηρίζουμε τον δίκαιο αγώνα του παλαιστινιακού λαού για τερματισμό της ισραηλινής κατοχής και για ανεξάρτητο παλαιστινιακό κράτος στα σύνορα του ’67 με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ.


(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I would like to thank all of you. We know this is a very divisive issue. It is in the Council and it is in the Parliament. But I would like to remind you that I’m not expressing my personal opinion. My job is to be the High Representative of the Council and I have to represent what I think is the opinion of the Council.

Mr Zver, I haven’t said that this statement was the position of the European Union. I precisely said – and you should have listened to me – that since it was not unanimous – and it is in the records – I could not present an agreement of the Council. It was a statement of the High Representative, representing whom? Representing the 25 Member States who agreed with the statement. I said very clearly – you didn’t notice – so I will repeat it. It was not a statement of the European Union. It was a statement of the High Representative and was not unanimous.

Mr Zver, why did I go to Iran? Because I have a mandate – a unanimous mandate – from the Member States of the Council asking me to go and talk with everyone in the broader region of the far Middle East to try to see if there is any possibility for us, the European Union, to contribute to increasing stability and peace in the region. I have a mandate to go and talk to everybody. Everybody means everybody, and I have been talking with the Foreign Affairs Minister of Saudi Arabia, I went to Jordan, I have been talking with the Emirates, I went to Tehran and I will go to Iraq in order to have a look at what we Europeans can do in order to contribute, if we can, to the peace and stability of this region.

I am sorry, Mr Zver. I was confused. It was not you who spoke about what was or was not in the statement of the European Union. I think it was our colleague, Mr Ruissen. Sorry, I made a mistake. So my answer was directed to Mr Ruissen. My answer to you was relating to what I did in Iran. For sure we talked with the Iranians about everything that worries them and that worries us, but the main purpose was to ask what we can do in order to save the nuclear deal and what we can do in order to stabilise the region. We didn’t spend much time talking about the Israeli—Palestinian issue because the Iranians are very much aware that they have nothing to say on that problem.

Another Member – I think it was Ms Kempa – asked with whom I have been talking in the USA. Well, with the most prominent people, with Secretary of State Pompeo, with the National Security Advisor, Mr O’Brien, with Mr Kushner, the author of the plan, and with Ms Nancy Pelosi. And for sure the first three were very much in favour of their plan, while Ms Nancy Pelosi, who as you know is a Democrat, was very critical of it.

As I say, I am not expressing my opinion. In fact my opinion is of no interest here. I am expressing the majority of the Council, and the majority of the Council has supported the statement in which we sent a message saying that, first, everybody has to refrain from any unilateral actions contrary to international law which could exacerbate tensions further. We are asking that no one annexes the Jordan Valley. Yet this may happen. If it happens, you can be sure that it is not going to be peaceful. Maybe for some it doesn’t matter, but for us it matters a lot because we cannot provoke a wave of violence – another wave of violence – in Palestine.

We are asking Palestinians to keep calm and not go to violent demonstrations. We asked for the proposal to be considered as a starting point and I said clearly that maybe it could break the stalemate and create the dynamics in which we can go and talk again about what we can do in order to look for a solution to this very old, damaging and painful problem.

I am not denying the possibility of this being a starting point. What I am denying is not this possibility, but the fact that it is being considered as an end point because, if I tell you ‘come and negotiate, but I’ll tell you one thing. If we don’t agree, I will implement my proposal anyway.’ – this is not a big incentive to negotiate. ‘Come and negotiate but be aware that, if you don’t agree with me, I will implement the proposal anyway.’ Do you call that a negotiation? That’s what we refuse. And that is what we have been saying.

And believe me, we invited Secretary of State Pompeo to come to the Foreign Affairs Council to explain directly to all Member States their proposal. I know that there are some who are closer to this position and others who are very far away from it. I know that there is not going to be a unanimous position on this. It’s too divisive. But we have to discuss and we have to look, if not for unanimity, for the majority – whatever it is – and, believe me, I don’t think the majority of the Member States of the European Union are considering this proposal as a good starting point. But we’ll do our best and talk with everyone in order to try to break this stalemate and push for negotiations.

Some very optimistic people asked me why we don’t try to do something like we did many years ago in Madrid – the Oslo process and the Madrid process. I think we have the commitment to do something. We cannot just refuse. We cannot say that’s not good enough. We have to look for something that works and this is going to be part of the discussions that we are going to have next Monday in the Foreign Affairs Council.


  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)


  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O plano Trump é uma agressão ao povo palestiniano e ao direito internacional. Este plano enquadra-se na escalada belicista do imperialismo norte-americano e do regime sionista de Israel, que serve uma estratégia de desestabilização, provocação e domínio, que poderá ter graves consequências para os povos do Médio Oriente e do Mundo. Com este plano são violadas décadas de resoluções da ONU que reconhecem e consagram os direitos nacionais do povo palestiniano. Procura-se legitimar décadas de ocupação e terror contra o povo palestiniano, Ao prever, entre outras inaceitáveis medidas, a ocupação e anexação efetiva por parte de Israel de Jerusalém e de cerca de metade da Margem Ocidental do rio Jordão, assim como a legalização e continuidade territorial dos colonatos israelitas construídos em território palestiniano, o plano da Administração Trump tem como principal objetivo impor um novo e mais grave patamar na ocupação e anexação por Israel de territórios palestinianos, e o abandono da solução de dois estados, com as fronteiras de 1967 e a capital da Palestina em Jerusalém Leste. O plano Trump configura um gravíssimo abandono de qualquer perspetiva para uma solução justa, negociada e duradoura da questão palestiniana. Merece um pronto e inequívoco repúdio. Aqui sublinhamos a importância da unidade e da solidariedade em torno da causa palestiniana.

Laatst bijgewerkt op: 15 februari 2021Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid