Madam President, whilst we are talking here today in this House, in the Middle East, Israeli tanks are once again occupying the supposedly autonomous Palestinian territories. The Israeli army continues to carry out extrajudicial executions and its planes are still bombing Palestinian police – not army – headquarters, a police force that has no freedom of movement but which has been asked to dismantle terrorist networks and to detain all suspects. I am not ignoring the fact that the Council, and especially the High Representative, Mr Javier Solana, are redoubling their efforts to achieve some kind of tangible result. I wonder whether the declaration made by the Council last Monday will contribute to this in any way. In any case, I would like to refer to this declaration. In it, the Union, as is well known, insists, in the following order: firstly, that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist networks, detain all suspects and make a public call for the end of the Intifada. Next, in second place, that the Israeli Government withdraw its armed forces, put an end to the extrajudicial executions and also to the blockades and restrictions that oppress the Palestinian people, and that they put an end to the building of settlements. I applaud this declaration, like Prime Minister Sharon, who stated that this is the first time such a demand in the fight against terrorism has been addressed in such a clear and unambiguous fashion to Arafat by the Union. Obviously, Sharon’s satisfaction refers solely to the EU’s demands to the Palestinian Authority. There was no declaration from Sharon on the Council’s demand that Israel end its violence. The Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs, Shimon Peres, also liked the declaration. He said that he thought it was ‘a responsible European stance’, which was a more positive statement than that given by Sharon, but he went on to state that the Israeli military action is necessary. He states that this action – which the EU calls for an end to – is necessary to prevent attacks being made on Israeli citizens, and added that ‘it is very easy to give advice to countries whose problems are very different from your own’. It appears that the EU’s attitude is responsible if it gives advice to the Palestinian Authority, but this is not the case if it tries to advise the Israeli Government. In my humble opinion, it is probably this type of statement that prompted Louis Michel to say that the EU did not have Israel’s interests in mind when it made such a declaration. I am aware of this, but the question remains that there continues to be a situation where there is an occupier and the occupied, and the occupier wants to continue playing the game by its own rules, whilst the second – the occupied – is asking for a straightforward end to the occupation, and, with this, peace. The Council is also aware of this, and it has always hoped to have, like this Parliament, greater influence in the peace process. I think that it also knows that this cannot simply be requested, it has to be worked for and achieved. Finally, I would like to say that I expect – and I am sure of this – that this recent mission led by the High Representative and the possible decisions to be made at Laeken will take us in this direction. (Applause)

Political group: PSE