Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting President The Minutes from yesterday' s sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? Corbett Madam President, a small error: in the English version of the Minutes, at the end of that section, it stated that Mr Napolitano is chairman of the CONT - I presume the Committee on Budgetary Control. In fact, he is chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. President We will correct that, Mr Corbett. (The Minutes were approved) Sakellariou Madam President, I wish to raise a matter of a highly sensitive nature for this House and which affects the debate about enlargement. It concerns a statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry about Mr Poos' report on the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. In that statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry makes an unfair and slanderous attack on an honourable Member who presented his report to the relevant committee. The committee accepted the report as it stood with only two votes against. I can see that parliamentarianism in Turkey has not yet reached the stage where they can understand what is in this report and what responsibility, if we can call it that, Mr Poos has taken on. It is a report of Parliament. I would therefore like to see Parliament respond to this unfair attack. Madam President, to give you just one example of the bad taste, it says here in point 1 of the statement: 'Mr Poos is known for both his opposition to Turkey and for his personal links with the government of Cyprus.' (DE) That is a slander bordering on the criminal. I would like to see a response to this accusation from Turkey not from Mr Poos but from this House and also from the Commission. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause) President Thank you. We shall look into this very carefully. There are no other points of order. I would just like to tell Mr Helmer that the officials are currently working to put the British flag back. There was a problem this morning with the British flag, which we are trying to sort out as soon as possible. Situation in the Middle East President The next item is the Council and Commission statement on the situation in the Middle East. Neyts-Uyttebroeck Madam President, Commissioner Patten, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for arriving slightly late, but I have come straight from Brussels. I would like to thank you for your understanding. Ladies and gentlemen, as Minister Michel said when he spoke before the European Parliament' s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy on 28 August 2001, there has, in recent months, been an escalation of violence in the Middle East. The alarming result is the total collapse of trust between the two parties. On the ground, this has created a profound sense of helplessness amongst all the people concerned. Unfortunately, not a day goes by that is without bloody incidents and new acts of provocation, thereby indefinitely postponing a cease-fire, and an end to the infernal cycle of reprisals, all the while adding to the growing list of victims. This situation, recently described by Minister Hubert Védrine as 'monstrous and revolting' , is naturally giving rise to grave concerns about stability in a region that is on our doorstep. The international community cannot tolerate such an escalation for much longer. It must strongly condemn the aggravating factors, namely the terrorism and the suicide attacks perpetrated by Palestinians in Israel. Apart from the fact that these acts of terrorism are an abomination in that they target innocent civilians, they simply encourage Israel to pursue an increasingly repressive policy. Shooting at Israelis, whether Jewish settlers or soldiers, by Palestinians activists from Palestinian-controlled zones, and also the excessive and disproportionate use of force by Israel only fuels the cycle of violence. Using combat aircraft in residential areas, launching missiles to systematically destroy buildings housing police and security services of the Palestinian Authority, and assassinating Palestinian activists are hardly convincing components in a strategy geared towards achieving peace and security. Israeli military incursions into areas that have been transferred to Palestinian control are violations of signed agreements. The closure of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, especially Orient House, and the seizure of files are political measures that are not very likely to appease Palestinians. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we consider the current prospects of resuming a direct dialogue, where would that leave us? To start with, it is against a very worrying backdrop of the radicalisation of positions by the different parties involved in the conflict that the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, recently and publicly proposed resuming a direct dialogue with the Palestinian Authority in order to scale down the violence and to enforce a cease-fire, two objectives which have so far seemed out of reach. During his recent visit to the region, the German Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, managed to obtain an agreement from the Palestinian leader to set up a meeting between Mr Arafat and Mr Peres. It is hoped that this meeting, which will obviously require very careful preparation and preliminary meetings at intermediary levels, will succeed in overcoming the current security deadlock. It is, in fact, to help with these preparations that the EU Special Envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, visited the region at the end of August. Unfortunately, his mission had to be diverted very quickly from its original objective when fresh violence and tension erupted following Israel' s assassination of Mr Abdul Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front, on 27 August. This assassination led to extremely violent clashes in South Jerusalem, where the Jewish settlement of Gilo is located, as well as in the Beit Jalla and Bethlehem districts, located in the border region of the Palestinian West Bank. Under extremely heavy international pressure and through intensive shuttle diplomacy by Mr Moratinos, his security advisor and the team of European monitors, combined with direct telephone contacts between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat, a local cease-fire was arranged, prompting the Israeli Army to withdraw from Beit Jalla at the break of day on 29 August. Also in the context of the preparations for a meeting and talks between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat, the High Representative, Mr Solana, assisted by Ambassador Moratinos, made a renewed visit to the region, arriving in Jerusalem on Sunday, 2 September last. He will hold a series of meetings with the Palestinian and Israeli authorities on 3 and 4 September. He will therefore be in a position to give the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Member States his impressions and assessment during the meeting in Genval, near Brussels, on 8 and 9 September. (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to efforts made by the European Union, I would like to stress that the Belgian Presidency set itself three objectives with a view to helping resolve the crisis in the Middle East. The first is to promote a policy of impartiality, which is absolutely necessary if the European Union wishes to gain Israel' s trust. The second is to enhance the role of the European Union in the region, in particular by making optimum use of the trust which the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, has earned since taking part in the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit and in the drafting of the Mitchell Commission report. The third is enhanced consultation between the European Union and the United States, given the key role that the Americans will be playing in resolving the Middle East issue. Let us return for a moment to impartiality, whose principle and justifications are not always correctly understood. Some go so far as to claim that the European Union must henceforth align itself with the Palestinian and Arab positions. In my view, this is an aberration. First of all, we should remember that one of the difficulties is precisely due to the fact that Israel is opposed to any UN involvement in resolving this conflict, as it believes that the organisation would be biased against it, because the 22 countries of the Arab League and the 55 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference would outnumber Israel and abuse its numerical strength. Attempts - and now it is a question of more than mere attempts - to compare Zionism with racism, as at the Durban Conference and, therefore, to transform the Israeli-Arab conflict into a racial and religious conflict, when in fact it is a political conflict requiring a political solution, will certainly not have helped matters. Fortunately, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has personally been able to win the respect and trust of Israel, with his much more measured approach. Next, still on the subject of impartiality, how could the European Union justify its preference for one of the parties in the conflict, when it is involved in a partnership with both Israel and with the Palestinian authorities? The European Union is, in addition, working with Syria and Lebanon within the Barcelona process, one of the aims of which is precisely to establish an area of stability, peace and prosperity in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, the principle of impartiality is wholly in line with the Oslo accords. These accords rule out any action that could prejudice the outcome of the final negotiations in which the parties will negotiate directly with each other for the permanent settlement of the Palestinian question. Having mentioned the aims of the Belgian Presidency, let us now consider progress in the recent efforts made by the European Union. The European Union backed the report of the 'fact-finding commission' , widely referred to as the Mitchell Commission, whose recommendations were published in New York on 21 May 2001 and accepted by both parties. The European Union also lent its support for the Tenet cease-fire plan that came into force on 13 June 2001 with the agreement of both parties. We are aware of our progress with regard to observing this agreement. In spite of this, the plan aims to increase security cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian security services. In order to fill the vacuum created by the absence of any direct dialogue, the European Union agreed upon a strategy of ensuring a presence in the region through an uninterrupted string of visits by prominent political leaders. In the run-up to the Belgian Presidency, Foreign Affairs Minister Louis Michel personally visited the six countries most directly concerned, during a six-day tour from 18 to 25 April 2001. Since then, there has been a steady stream of foreign ministers, as well as the Prime Minister and Mr Solana, visiting the region. Most recently it was the turn of our German and Italian colleagues, and visits by the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister and Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, will soon take place. Despite having a very busy agenda, the Belgian Presidency hopes to be able to return to the region shortly, in early November, for example, if circumstances allow. Madam President, I would have failed in my duty to acknowledge the efforts made by several institutions and key figures within the European Union if I also failed to highlight the extremely active role played by Commissioner Patten to ensure not only the financial survival of the Palestinian authorities but much more besides. Of course, he does much more than that. Clearly - and I cannot stress this enough - the European Union has hereto been the most important donor for the region and the Palestinian Authority and, without our financial assistance, without the imagination and ingeniousness that we have to use to continue to supply the authorities with adequate funding to enable it to function, the situation would be infinitely more difficult. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the General Affairs Council meeting of 16 July 2001, the European Union clearly set out what it expects of the parties involved. So as to ensure that peace returns to the region, the European Union said that it was particularly in favour of the principle of establishing an impartial monitoring mechanism, considering that such a mechanism would be in the interests of both parties. This proposal was included in the brief statement made by the Heads of State on 21 July 2001, at the end of the G8 Summit in Genoa, which I should mention at this point. The Fifteen are continuing to reflect on the means of implementing this mechanism. Lastly, the Presidency, on behalf of the Council, has of course issued statements whenever it was deemed to be necessary. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to say in conclusion that this insane cycle of killings - and there is no other way to describe it - carried out by the continuing violence and terrorism is proving with each passing day to be totally ineffectual as a way of resolving the crisis. The serious deterioration in the security situation and the complete lack of trust between the two parties probably render unlikely any prospect of seeing the protagonists putting an end to their conflict by themselves. Outside help now appears essential. With this background, an impartial monitoring mechanism, even on a small-scale, would be in the interests of both parties as a means of ensuring full implementation of the Tenet plan and the full and immediate application of the recommendations of the Mitchell Commission, respecting its deadlines and the planned order of events. (NL) In the meantime, it is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that calm is restored. This means that they must each review their attitudes. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority must adopt measures to stem the flow of violence and terrorism, without which any attempts to relaunch a political process would fail. For its part, Israel must create conditions that will favour a return to the negotiating table, mainly by lifting at the earliest opportunity all restrictions imposed on the Palestinian population. The so far very local cease-fire which the parties agreed upon on 28 August for the Beit Jalla/Bethlehem-Gilo sector and which is being complied with must be consolidated and extended to include other hotspots of conflict and tension in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. The creation of direct dialogue must allow the parties - provided that the situation on the ground becomes stable -to gradually make the transition from a crisis management scenario to a crisis resolution scenario. In my opinion, the immediate aims of this direct dialogue are the gradual extension and observation of the cease-fire. This should occur sector-by-sector as it were, together with the improvement of the living and working conditions of the Palestinians. (NL) This alone, however, is not sufficient. Alongside this, it should also be possible to offer a political perspective very promptly. This political prospect is set out in the Mitchell report which, in turn, should only be viewed as an intermediate stage towards the eventual relaunch of negotiations on a permanent status for the Palestinian regions. It is high time we returned to the letter and spirit of the Oslo Accords. It should be remembered that those Accords paved the way for significant progress, which must be safeguarded at all costs. The problems that have arisen are less the result of the imperfections of those Accords than the product of the failure of the parties to scrupulously apply all aspects of the Accords. (FR) Lastly, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although the intensive and so-called final negotiations, which took place between July 2000 and January 2001, in locations ranging from Camp David to Taba, were not able to secure a framework agreement due to, on the one hand, mistakes made by all the parties involved and also because of artificially restrictive timetables, I still cannot stress enough the bold progress that was made in mapping out possible solutions to extremely delicate and highly complex issues of truly vital importance to both parties. It will, of course, be very hard to climb that mountain again, but priority must be given, firstly to restoring the trust lost by both parties, and also to the chances of achieving a satisfactory negotiated solution. That is why, instead of the current climate of pessimism that is now so deeply ingrained in public opinion shaken by the crisis, the leaders on both sides must quickly build new hope for a better future based on security, mutual respect and peace. Only a political process - one which finally results in the exchange of land for peace, puts an end to the occupation and allows the emergence of a sovereign, viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state that is committed to coexisting alongside Israel, and is therefore also willing, of course, to acknowledge this right to coexist with Israel - only this situation can finally give Israel and, more importantly, the region as a whole the security, stability and peace, to which their people aspire. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot resign ourselves to the logic of war and violence developing in both parties. The going will be tough, but we must get going. (Applause) President I would like to thank Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck and I shall now give the floor to Commissioner Patten. Patten Madam President, the Minister has set out with great clarity and comprehensiveness the situation in the Middle East at the moment and, as the Minister has said and everyone in Parliament knows, the situation in the region has gone from bad to worse and threatens to become worse still. In considering what I should say this morning I was struck once again, by the difference between the strength of the adjectives and the nouns that we use to describe the situation and the strength of the verbs we use in trying to resolve it. It really is an intensely difficult problem. The continuing violence - according to the news this morning there has been another suicide bombing in Jerusalem - and the endless recriminations and refusal of the parties to rise above their grievances and choose the path of peace is not only profoundly regrettable but also frustrating for everyone in the international community who is trying to find a way out of the current impasse. Both parties, as the Minister said earlier, have failed to seize the opportunity offered by the recommendations of the Mitchell report, offered again in the Tenet plan. But again we come back to the point that there is no better basis for an end to the violence, for laying the foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future, than Mitchell. What is the alternative? The alternative is more bloodshed, with an international dispute turned into a bitter feud and continuing collateral damage internationally, as we are seeing this week at the conference in Durban. So what can the European Union do in these circumstances? The Minister has explained, very clearly the extremely important role the Presidency has been playing, trying to mobilise international opinion around proposals which offer a way forward. The Minister has also noted the efforts made by all the European Union foreign ministers and, of course, Javier Solana, who has been attempting to bring Israelis and Palestinians together and to get them to return to the negotiating table. We obviously have to continue to urge all concerned to implement all and not just some of the recommendations of the Mitchell report immediately. We will go on doing that and delivering that message. We must also urge the parties to reduce the level of distrust which has been built up in recent months. They must reaffirm their commitment to the fundamental long-term goals of the Middle East peace process, secure borders for Israel through the negotiated establishment of a viable Palestinian state on the basis of the relevant UN resolutions. Palestinian leaders must make clear day-by-day their unequivocal condemnation of and opposition to attacks on the innocent and violence in all its forms. It is sometimes suggested by critics that we in the European Union have not been sufficiently strong in our condemnation of terrorism. That is a grossly unfair criticism. For example, in its statement after the attack in Jerusalem on 9 August the Presidency unreservedly condemned the bombing of a Jerusalem shopping centre and it abhorred that cowardly attack, which mainly claimed the lives of innocent civilians. After the attack in Haifa on 12 August, the Presidency once again put out a statement condemning recent suicide bomb attacks in the strongest terms and pointing out that these attacks targeted at Israeli citizens are hateful and repugnant in the extreme. So we have made clear our opposition to terrorism in all its manifestations, but if we are to stand a better chance of ending the cycle of violence and weakening the position of radical forces. Palestinians need to be able to see a real prospect of an improvement in their daily lives. This should include the implementation of existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. For a start, the lifting of the closures, the transfer of tax revenues, safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, reopening of the airport and creating export facilities that will allow Palestinians to benefit from their agreements with the European Union and with other partners. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anybody should suppose that further impoverishment of the Palestinian territories and increased employment among young Palestinians can have anything to do with the restoration of security. I am sure that we all took away rewarding reading matter during our summer break. I spent a good deal of my summer reading about the 1930s and about the relationship between economic impoverishment, economic hardship and political extremism in country after country. We must go on reiterating the point that trying to do so much damage, putting such a tough squeeze on the Palestinian territories, is not to restore security or the way to lay the foundations for a future in which both parties can live happily and amicably together. (Applause)Third-party monitoring of the proper implementation of those agreements and a functioning dispute settlement mechanism would obviously help to address Palestinian frustration with the current non-implementation of existing agreements. All this would help to bring about a revival of the Palestinian economy, give Palestinians a stake in their own futures and improve the prospects for a better future to be achieved by political negotiations. These efforts need to be supported by a range of confidence-building measures to overcome the current deep distrust, not only between the leading politicians, but also between the two peoples. This is an area in which Parliament has quite rightly taken a particularly strong interest. I want to remind Parliament that in the past two years alone the Commission has allocated about EUR 50 million to peace-building programmes fostering Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in particular. These programmes promote peace through joint projects and awareness campaigns for tolerance and peace. We have an important role to play in supporting the voices of moderation wherever they exist. The sad fact is that the longer this dreadful situation continues the fewer moderates there are going to be, but they show considerable courage in their own communities and they deserve our continuing support. The Commission stands ready to use all the instruments available to it to help alleviate the very severe financial difficulties facing the Palestinians. Our package of support for the Palestinian authority is a successful example of how the European Union can deliver assistance in a sensible, fast and effective manner and I am extremely grateful to Parliament for its support in our work. European support for the Palestinian Authority budget is secured until November and the Arab states are currently considering extending their budgetary support until the end of the year. It is still too early for any concrete announcement regarding further Commission intervention. We have just reached mid-term in our current support operation and we are awaiting Palestinian compliance with a number of conditions to be followed by an evaluation and assessment of the pretty grim macroeconomic and fiscal outlook. Palestinian needs in 2002, and the contributions of other donors will have to be looked at in the context of an assessment of the economic situation in the Palestinian territories currently being carried out by the World Bank. It is expected that this exercise will be concluded by the end of September. Once these data are available, the Commission will consider how best we can contribute further to international efforts. Of course, we will keep in the closest touch with Parliament about our assessment of the financial requirements of the Palestinian authority and about our continuing determination to ensure that even in the present appalling circumstances our financial assistance depends, as far as the Palestinian side is concerned, on transparency, proper budgetary prudence and a commitment on the Palestinian side to fight corruption. Those are all points that have all been made to us by Members of this House and they underlie our determination to secure a proper agreement between ourselves and the Palestinians before we started releasing money in budgetary support. In the meantime, I can only repeat what the Minister said so ably a few moments ago. What is required is a recommitment to Mitchell as rapidly as possible. Unless we see that, the situation will get even worse, with considerable damage right across the region. (Applause) President I would like to thank Commissioner Patten and I shall now give the floor to Mr Galeote Quecedo. Galeote Quecedo Madam President, it is true that the situation seems to have settled into a horrendous vicious circle in which there are threats and acts of violence from both sides, such as the attack just a few hours ago in West Jerusalem. We should all be wondering how we have been able to get into this situation, when, in January of this year, the then Labour Government of Israel put forward a peace proposal which today seems almost unimaginable. However, the Prime Minister, Mr Sharon, could also be asking himself whether the sense of insecurity which his compatriots are feeling today is greater or less than before he won the election comfortably. Yasser Arafat could also be asking himself whether his people are living better or worse than eleven months ago when the Intifada began. I do not believe that we should be attributing blame here and I do not think we should be indulging in a simplistic reading of the events, but there is no doubt that the break-up of the negotiations has had a profound effect on Israeli and Palestinian public opinion. In Israel this has meant that broad sections of the left in that country, above all those who were most involved in the negotiations at Sharm El Sheik, Camp David and Taba, are deeply disappointed in the Palestinian leader. This emotional reaction is combined with a more reflective reaction from some representatives of the right in Israel who agree on denying Mr Arafat the opportunity to negotiate. My group, Madam President, believes that this attitude is profoundly mistaken and that it in no way contributes to a recovery of the peace process. In the current circumstances it may be that Mr Arafat still has additional room for manoeuvre in terms of halting the violence, but he surely has less than the Israeli authorities are demanding of him. And, in any event, there is not the slightest sign on the horizon of any alternative possibility of negotiation on the Palestinian side. There is clearly nothing edifying about the situation of the Palestinian territories, whose citizens are living with a sense of humiliation and indignity, which is fertile ground for radical fundamentalism. But now more than ever the Palestinian Authority should demonstrate that it is prepared to comply with, and ensure compliance with, a peace agreement which in no way is going to fulfil all their aspirations. Despite the pessimism reigning on both sides, or perhaps because of it, the role of the international community is now essential. The European Union now has a broader margin for action, which it must exploit through specific contributions, using its economic influence in the area for political ends, ensuring that its development aid is applied to projects which bring specific benefits to the population and that, of course, it is coherent with the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and creating better and closer coordination with the negotiating forces of the US Government. Madam President, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Madrid Conference, the European Union must recover the principle of 'peace for land' , which inspired the peace talks. Like ten years ago, we Europeans now have to double our efforts, and my parliamentary group would therefore like to ask the Belgian Presidency to propose to the Council that we need to reinforce the team of our Special Representative, Mr Moratinos. (Applause from the right) Barón Crespo Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to express, on behalf of the Socialist Group, our condolences for today' s latest victims and begin by stating one fact: that we have returned in terms of rhetoric and actions to a situation which had begun to unravel after the Madrid Conference. I am not going to give a lengthy description of what is happening. I do believe that we Europeans should consider ourselves committed to and involved in this process. I prefer to talk about this than about equidistances, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, because there is no total equidistance between a consolidated, sovereign and democratic State such as Israel, and a possible embryonic State for a people which do not yet have a homeland. I believe that that is an important element to which we should add - as a message to Mr Sharon' s government - that the policy of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' brings nothing but disaster. We Europeans know something about this, because it is precisely that policy which we have abandoned by means of the European Union. Furthermore, economic and human asphyxia is not the way to resolve the conflict and a policy of this type only serves to reinforce the extremists on both sides. I therefore believe that, from the position of friendship that we feel for Israel, we must express this clearly. Secondly, Madam President, for the first time we Europeans are signatories of an agreement. We were at Sharm el-Sheik and the High Representative is currently in Jerusalem. Our Foreign Affairs Ministers, Mr Fischer, Mr Michel and Mr Ruggiero, are visiting the area and I believe that this also demonstrates our European will. I believe that we do not just have to express political will, but that Parliament has to help to find the light at the end of this tunnel. That is why I proposed to the Conference of Presidents - and it has been accepted - that, instead of producing a resolution today, in the heat of the moment, without knowing the result of the consultations, we use the weapon granted us by the Treaty of Maastricht and produce a recommendation so that the Committee on Foreign Affairs can assess whether or not there is any progress throughout this month. I believe that in this game of lethal symbols which the Israel and the Palestinians are engaged in, we should also ask for positive symbols. One of them, which seems to me important, is that Orient House in Jerusalem be reopened, because it has always been a platform for peace. I must remind you that, as President of the European Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit Orient House. Nothing will be achieved by removing all the bridges to dialogue. Lastly, Madam President, in the middle of this dramatic crisis, it is cause for hope that there are Israeli and Palestinian voices which have the civic and political courage to sign a joint manifesto. I am referring to the appeal made jointly by some of the protagonists of the peace processes of recent years, for example Mr Beilin and Mrs Ashraui, who have signed a manifesto - I have the original text in English - in which, under the title "No to bloodshed, no to occupation, yes to negotiation, yes to peace" they say something which the directorate of the Party of European Socialists decided to jointly support at its meeting on Sunday. I will quote a section of this manifesto which, in my opinion, sums up the will which we have to apply to this process. It says the following: "We still believe in the humanity of the other side, that we have a partner for peace and that a negotiated solution to the conflict between our peoples is possible". That is the approach which we Europeans have to support. We must ask the Americans to be more active and to try once again to guide the people of the region. Esteve Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am not going to insist on the seriousness of the situation or of the escalation. However, I would like to insist on what Commissioner Patten has said: the violence has not perhaps reached the level it could reach. Sometimes we say 'things cannot get any worse' , but in this case the situation could get worse. Therefore, our obligation is not only to resolve the problem but, of course, to prevent it getting any worse. However, apart from the fact that we are trying to put an end to the violence by means of dialogue, I believe that I should add certain aspects, directly related to human rights, to what previous speakers have said. Of course, the fact that there are innocent victims represents a direct attack on human rights. It is therefore necessary to point out specifically and to insist, both to Israel, which frequently uses disproportionate State force, and to the Palestinians, who do not control their activists, that human rights are continually being affected. I believe that the European Parliament should currently be sensitive to the fact, condemned by certain NGOs, that four Palestinians may be executed if Yasser Arafat does not commute the sentences handed down for internal activities within the Palestinian area or for collaboration. I believe that this Parliament should try to prevent these executions. Recovering dialogue: I would like, in the time available to me, because everything is getting worse and, of course, the Durban Conference has merely exacerbated the situation, to mention what I believe are the eight issues to which we should lend clear support. Firstly, I believe that the priority should be to resolve the problem of impartiality. I agree that impartiality is not the same as equidistance, Mr Barón, I agree with you. I believe that impartiality is a necessary concept, but in politics impartiality is often not achieved without equidistance. Therefore, equidistance may be an instrument, although I do not doubt that the objective is impartiality. I believe that it is urgent and important to recover impartiality towards everybody, in particular towards Israel. Secondly, we must clearly insist on the mission of impartial observers from the European Union. Thirdly, the Mitchell report must continue to be the direction we take. There is no other, at the moment at least. Fourthly, we must prevent the inappropriate use of the Barcelona Process for the Middle East conflict. The Barcelona Process suffers with the Middle East Conflict but it is not the appropriate course for resolving that conflict. Fifthly, we must insist on the need for the United States and Russia to participate. The sixth issue is that we must clearly promote as far as possible every type of contact, as is happening at the moment. The seventh issue is that the actions of the Ministers, of the Commission and of the Council must be aimed at promoting dialogue between Mr Arafat and Mr Peres, between Palestinians and Israelis. And in this regard, Madam President, we keenly await the report to be presented by Mr Solana and which Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck has announced. Finally, and here I agree with Mr Barón Crespo, any symbol is positive; any possibility, such as the opening of Orient House, is positive; anything which will stop the conflict escalating is important and the essential thing is to return to peace and dialogue. Lagendijk Madam President, the most tiresome political debates are the ritual political debates. Debates in which everyone acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and subsequently repeats what they said last time. The debate on the Middle East threatens to become something of a ritual debate. We too, in Parliament, are always asking for the European Union to play a more active role. The Council and the Commission subsequently respond: we are making every effort, but we cannot do anything alone and there is division in the ranks. This position was expressed most clearly by Mr Michel last week. It is clear to us, including myself, that diplomatic success is impossible without the United States. But what is the United States doing? In this connection, I would concur with Mr van den Broek, the predecessor of Mr Patten as Commissioner for External Relations, who said that the United States is, in fact, pursuing a declaratory policy. It says that things should be done differently. It calls on the parties to stop what they are doing, and then nothing happens. If the European Union wishes to adopt the same policy, that should be made clear, and we should then no longer talk about the European Union' s playing an active role in the Middle East. In this debate, I should like to make a fresh attempt to break the deadlock, in this case the ritual debate, by invoking the European Union' s economic role. If the truth be told, I am getting a little tired of the response by the Commission and Council who say: Mr Lagendijk, economic sanctions are ineffective. As Mr Michel said last week: we know where we start but we do not know where we finish. What I want, the appeal that I am making, is not for economic sanctions à la Iraq. That is not what I want at all. What is important is that it is unacceptable for the European Union to carry on as we have always done while the region is under threat of war. We are doing business with the Israelis and are simply the Palestinians' largest donor. We cannot continue as if nothing were wrong, while the region is on the brink of war. I only want to know, and I am addressing this question to the Commission and the Council, whether you would be so kind as to examine the options - and I am choosing my words carefully - for trying, via the economic ties we have with both parties, and I emphasise 'both' parties, to apply pressure in order to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. I was, from that point of view, pleasantly surprised that Mr Van den Broek, Mr Patten' s predecessor, thinks along the same lines. I appreciate that this is difficult. It might even be impossible. However, it would be unacceptable if the use of financial instruments by the European Union were ruled out. The Council and the Commission have repeatedly stated that they are willing to make every effort to break the deadlock. In my opinion, this includes that instrument too. Even if it is painful, I do hope that the European Union does not make the same mistake as the United States, namely say that something must be done and subsequently do nothing. (Applause from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance) Wurtz Madam President, the Middle East is currently experiencing its darkest period since, or even before, the signing of the Oslo Accords. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, in this context, it does not make much sense to talk of a policy of impartiality. We are not taking sides against Israel by condemning outright the policy of its current government. This was a policy that the statesman Yitzhak Rabin had the insight and courage to turn his back on, an action which cost him his life. Sadly, now that all prospects of a just peace for the Palestinian people have been dashed, bloody attacks are being made on innocent Israeli civilians, which exceed the boundaries of legitimate resistance by an occupied people. These intolerable actions only serve to increase the hatred and feelings of vengeance. A vicious circle was precisely what we feared most in the event of Ariel Sharon' s election, and this is what we are now caught up in. I support the comments made by Commissioner Patten. We must concentrate on doing all we possibly can to help to find a way out of this impasse that is causing so many deaths. In this spirit, and I repeat what Mr Barón Crespo has said, we can only welcome with great pleasure and profound admiration the eminently dignified and courageous work that a group of key figures, both Israeli and Palestinians, ministers, members of parliament, writers and lawyers, carried out this summer. The outcome of this collaboration was the publication of a joint declaration in which they made a commitment to work together, on the basis of principles that are acknowledged by the international community, to restore trust and hope in peace. In conjunction with the laudable efforts of our diplomatic staff, I propose that we lend our support to this initiative by using all the resources at our disposal, by inviting, for example, the two main players - the former Israeli minister, Yossi Beilin, and the Palestinian minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo - or by awarding them the Sakharov Prize, or even by setting up a European committee to support their joint declaration. In doing so, we shall, in our capacity as the European Parliament, be making a real contribution to peace. Thank you in advance. (Applause from the GUE/NGL Group) Collins Madam President, it is a matter of deepest concern and regret for us all that the prospects for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has receded in recent months. We are all aware that the levels of violence have dangerously escalated and that the excessive and disproportionate use of force has resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians. It is clear that commitments entered into by various parties, instead of being built upon, are in fact being reversed. The levels of violence and the levels of provocation have risen to new heights, and this is the primary reason why the parties are now no longer engaged in dialogue. Dialogue is the only way forward if we are to end the violence in the Middle East at this time. Where dialogue does not take place, the gap is only filled by mutual misunderstandings and ritual condemnations and fear. One of the primary challenges now for the European Union and the broader international community is to ensure that there is a resumption of an active and effective mediation process within the Middle East. There is an urgent need for a third-party monitoring system to be appointed in an effort firstly to end the violence which is taking place now on a daily basis, and secondly to resume peace talks. It is also time that the obstacles to the implementation of the Mitchell report were removed. We should recall for a moment that the key findings of this fact-finding committee include the following recommendations: the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should reaffirm existing agreements and immediately cease violence; there should be a resumption of security cooperation; there should be establishment of a meaningful cooling-off period and incitement in all forms should be discouraged. Dupuis Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Wurtz talked of the Middle East' s darkest period. Perhaps he was thinking of Mr Riad Al-Turk, the leading opposition figure in Syria, who was re-arrested today. Perhaps he was thinking of the shocking images showing how 50 homosexual men were recently treated in Egypt. Perhaps he was thinking of the trial of Nawal El Sadaawi, or perhaps of the trial of Mr Ibrahimi, also in Egypt. Perhaps he was thinking of all the women in Saudi Arabia and other countries, who have absolutely no rights in their own countries. This describes the Middle East of today, the Middle East that we do not discuss. This is the Middle East that we encourage to reject democracy, to reject the rule of law, and we continue to consider and propose a policy of impartiality for Israel. Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, I think that it is impossible in politics - and even less so in this particular case - to propose a policy of impartiality. The European Union' s policy must, of course, be a policy to promote peace, but, most importantly and primarily, it must be a policy to promote democracy. Yet, we still have a great deal to do in order to achieve this. We all knew, and now we know exactly how far Mr Barak stretched his profound determination to reach a fair peace agreement with the Palestinians, and we know that it was the determination of Mr Arafat and his democratic supporters alone that sabotaged and destroyed this peace process. It is clear that some Members of this House would like Mr Sharon to conduct a different policy. Unfortunately, Mr Sharon' s policy is not very different. Of course, he has made some mistakes, but in the main, he is acting in response to the deep-rooted feelings of the Israelis, who no longer trust Mr Arafat - I do not mean the Palestinian people - and I think we can understand why this is the case. I think that this is the fundamental problem and the European Union cannot respond, Mr Patten, by considering sociological proposals to improve the economic conditions. This is a political question and it concerns the involvement of the European Union in this process. The Union has an historical duty to be involved. Instead of continuing to advance reluctantly with regard to enlargement, the European Union has no choice but to propose that Israel, with its population of five million people, becomes a full member of the European Union. This is the only way to ensure the security of the Israeli people and also, therefore, the security of the Palestinians and thus to guarantee peace for the future. Any other suggestion is just hot air. As Mr Lagendijk pointed out, we have said a great deal. Perhaps we should now get down to the business of politics. (Applause from the TDI group) Belder Madam President, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, acting President of the Council, Mr Michel, did not pull any punches during his speech on the European Union' s input to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he stated that the role of the European Union is very limited. This is mainly due to two factors, as Mr Michel openly acknowledged: Israel considers the EU to be pro-Palestinian, in other words not to be an impartial external mediator in the dispute between neighbours; and, secondly, there is no unanimity within the European Council as to a common strategy to be adopted for the Middle East. How can the EU respond? It can, at any rate, moderate the Israeli criticism of pro-Palestinian partiality by resolutely distancing itself as the Council, the Commission and individual Member States from the unprecedented anti-Israeli smear campaign which is currently being conducted at and around the UN Conference against racism in Durban. At the same time, the European institutions must openly condemn the behaviour of the President of the Palestinian Authority. Mr Arafat' s accusation, levelled at Israel, of pursuing a racist policy only fans the flames of Palestinian violence. Meanwhile, the German Foreign Minister, Mr Fischer, is attempting to round up the EU Member States in order to revive the Middle East peace process. His plans, summarised in a non-paper, have the backing of four major EU Member States (France, Great Britain, Spain and Italy), as well as of the High Representative, Mr Solana, according to the German press. Have the other members of the Council or the Commission been consulted? I would also add another question to this: has an understanding been reached with the US Administration? Surely, both the President of the Council, Mr Michel, and the non-paper emphasise the indispensability of Washington in order for the peace process to get back on its feet. The essence of the non-paper is the mediation and arrangement of an initial meeting between the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Peres, and Mr Arafat. This meeting should be the cautious beginning of a gradual peace process. Certainly in the non-paper, the Palestinians demand an end to the violence, but that is no longer an absolute condition for Israeli-Palestinian talks. Does the European Union not in this way, in fact, brook the Palestinian Intifada, which has now grown into a fully-fledged guerrilla organisation with fully-equipped paramilitary units?
{'language': 'en'}