Mr President, yesterday, on International Women’s Day, a group of Palestinian women were received here, at the initiative of my group. They spoke to us of their weariness and of their daily struggle to survive in the refugee camps. They spoke of their courage and of their undying and dignified longing for peace. In particular, they spoke of their expectations of the European Union. As you will be aware, the last few days have been particularly murderous in the Gaza Strip. Fourteen Palestinians, three of them children, have been killed; dozens have been wounded, including Israeli soldiers, as if the announced withdrawal from the zone had to be preceded by acts of destruction with increasingly irreparable consequences. Tomorrow, you are invited to meet Israeli pacifists. These so-called refuseniks have also courageously refused to participate in the occupation at the heart of the spiral of murder in which the Palestinian and the Israeli people are caught up. Clearly, we are today considering in particular Israel’s violation of the rules of origin within the framework of the association agreement. It is impossible, however, not to consider at the same time all those other blatant violations committed on a daily basis in the Palestinian occupied territories. These violations are also a complete betrayal of the spirit of partnership enshrined in the agreement signed. Consequently, for those who want to believe in a just peace, the debates on the rights or wrongs of the application of this agreement are indicative of what has unfortunately been seen as a reprehensible excess of caution on the part of the European Union. One is obliged to recognise that Israel treats with derision Europe’s reprimands relating to violations of Article 2 on the respect of fundamental rights, as well as those concerning the rules of origin. Let us consider the rules of origin. Since 1976, Israel has determined the origin of the products it exports without distinguishing between products originating within its territory and those originating in the territories occupied since 1967. In other words, there is no distinction between its products and those of its settlements. In this way, Israel has continually issued certificates of origin to products that are not eligible for preferential treatment according to Community law. Had it been committed by any other country, such a violation would doubtless have lead to stringent retaliatory measures. Due to Israel’s customs practices, however, it has thus far been impossible for Member States to prevent these preferential imports or to impose taxes. Neither did the Commission, at first, propose adequate measures to combat these practices. Subsequently, the Commission announced that it was going to get down to the task of coordinating the ineffective actions of the Member States. Then the Commission spelt out its position, a clear and lawful position. On 10 May 2001, Commissioner Patten stated in the House that, ‘preferential access to the Community market for exports from the Israeli settlements, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitutes a violation of the EC-Israel trade agreements’. The measures taken, however, have failed to put an end to this unlawful practice. Furthermore, the ongoing construction of that shameful wall can only exacerbate the situation. Olive and fruit trees have been uprooted before the villagers’ very eyes. Agricultural land has been rendered inaccessible to thousands of local inhabitants. Will this new illegal annexation lead to still more exports of products from these areas? Last November, the European Union stressed before the EU-Israel Association Council the importance of resolving the problem of the rules of origin before any amendment of the protocol on these same rules. The Commission indicated that it has pursued these discussions with Israel since then. Nevertheless, the question still remains. I would like to ask you again, Commissioner, whether the Commission will accept a solution that does not require Israel to stop issuing certificates of origin to products from its settlements within the framework of the association agreement. Will the Commission use the legal instruments available to it? The possibility of amending the agreement is now being put forward. If we accept this principle, however, and if Israel continues to violate the agreement, the European Union could forfeit all its rights to suspend the application of any part of this agreement in order to stop the violation. This would be unacceptable. It would amount to deliberately flouting international law. It would mean recognising Israel as the occupying power in the Palestinian Territories and recognising Israel’s practice of annexing and colonising them. Be that as it may, I would like to make it clear, once again, that it is absolutely essential to consult Parliament before the agreement is amended in any way. Will the Commission undertake to do so? My conclusion is a general one. The European Union cannot continue to be complicit in the continuing occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Mr Sharon’s government, in the theft of the produce of the land, in the confiscation of profits and in the denial to the people of the means of their existence and their very survival. The 1995 agreement followed closely on the heels of the Oslo process. It was designed to be a contribution to the peace process. The situation today is totally different. What type of cooperation can we be talking about?

Political group: GUE-NGL