Translated from Spanish original – check against delivery!

Mr President, Honourable Members, Commissioner [for crisis management, Janez] Lenarčič. 

I have just returned from a five-day mission to the countries of the Middle East, the Arab countries, Israel and Palestine. I felt the intense emotion which people are experiencing as a result of the events there. 

It should be possible to discuss and debate what is happening, overcoming emotion and fixing a firm focus on building peace.

On 7 October, the world witnessed the biggest massacre of Jews committed since the Second World War; it then went on to witness the bombings of Gaza, which the United Nations has described as an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. But this is not a natural disaster. It is not an earthquake or a flood. This disaster has been caused by a blockade which is preventing the basic necessities which the population needs for survival from reaching it. Another massacre, according to... [interruption due to technical issues with translation].

Mr President, I was saying that I have just returned from a five-day trip to the area where this dramatic conflict is playing out. And that we should be able to get beyond the emotion filling those who are suffering and look forward with a view to trying to build peace.

It should be possible because we have witnessed the largest killing, the greatest pogrom of Jews since the Second World War. We are seeing how the Gaza bombings have led to an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Yet this humanitarian catastrophe is not a catastrophe caused by nature; it is a catastrophe which humans have caused by cutting off the population’s access to basic supplies. The United Nations itself has described the situation as ‘carnage’.

It should be possible to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself, while at the same time being angry about what is happening to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. 

It should be possible to defend the right of Palestinians to have a state, without being called anti-Semitic.

It should be possible to criticise the Israeli Government’s policy (because all governments may be criticised) without being accused of wishing the Jews ill as a result of doing so. Let us not confuse matters. It is one thing to criticise the government of a country and quite another to reject part of the population. But I do also say that comments which show the ugly face of anti-Semitism do not help the Palestinian cause. Quite the opposite.

The International Criminal Court has already launched investigations to find out what is happening there. The Court’s Prosecutor, Karim Khan – with whom I have been in contact – has issued serious warnings to all the parties, stating that Israel also has clear obligations in respect of the war it is waging against Hamas. These are not only moral obligations, but also legal obligations deriving from the law of armed conflict. And they mean access for the population to the basic supplies needed for survival. They mean that every school, every hospital, every church and every mosque is a protected place. And unless they lose their protected-place status as a result of being used for military purposes, they have to be respected.

Where there is any doubt as to whether such territory or property has lost its protected status, the attacker must assume that it is still protected. It must provide proof of loss of status and facilitate the departure of civilians trapped there.

Similarly, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza are also violations of international humanitarian law. As regards preventing access – I was one of the first people to say that preventing access to water, electricity and basic supplies violated international humanitarian law. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (and it is he, not I, saying this), the Prosecutor himself has issued a firm warning to Israel about the need to make visible efforts, without further delay, to enable food, medicines and anaesthetics to be delivered to civilians.

The European Union is extremely concerned about what is happening. And, quite specifically, we have spoken out against the attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, which are still on the rise. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has referred also to these attacks. 

As you know, I represent the Council and therefore all the Member States. You also know that that is not an easy task, because at times the Member States have not all taken the same position. Or, for example, there was the vote at the United Nations General Assembly, where eight voted in favour of a pause for humanitarian reasons, four voted against, and the rest abstained.

There is a common European Council position defending pauses (‘pauses’ in the plural) and humanitarian corridors and calling on Israel, when it exercises its right of defence, to do so in accordance with the humanitarian and international laws that govern war. However, different European leaders have up to now been saying different things about how Israel has been exercising its right of defence. And where there is no common position, the High Representative cannot represent it.

The High Representative cannot represent it, but must continue working to build one. He must continue working to help the Member States reach convergence on a position that will allow them to be a geopolitical force in this conflict.

This is what we are trying to do, convinced as we are that there will be no military solution to this conflict. That it is not possible to kill an idea. That the only way is to have a better idea. And that better idea can only be to recognise that two peoples who have been disputing the same territory for over 100 years must and can live together if the international community commits to that goal. Up to now, we have not done so. 

For 30 years, since the Oslo Accords were signed, we have kept repeating that the solution is two states. The solution is two states. The solution is two states. But we have done little or nothing to achieve that. We have believed that the problem could be encapsulated and that we could forget the Palestinians, as the Arab states were already making peace with Israel.

The drama which has exploded shows us that that is not enough. Peace must also be made between Israel and Palestine. And if peace is to be made between Israel and Palestine, we must all – in particular we Europeans – commit to overcoming the immense pain which the events initiated by Hamas’ terrorist attack on the kibbutzim at the Gaza border have caused.

This can be an opportunity, a moment, to build peace. And that is what the European Union wants to be. We have put forward proposals: the 3 ‘yeses’, the 3 ‘noes’. Gaza cannot remain under the control of Hamas. Gaza cannot be occupied by Israel again. Gaza cannot be divided. A Palestinian Authority must return to Gaza. The Arab states must commit themselves and engage, not just by financing reconstruction. And we Europeans must also be an active part of a solution which can only be reached through an agreement which allows what we have been calling for for years, namely the coexistence of two opposing peoples who have to share the same territory and the same peace. 

Thank you very much, Honourable Member. 

Closing remarks

Thank you, Mr President.

As I pointed out at the start, it should be possible to see both sides of the story. And, yes, we have to say it again and repeat it as much as is necessary: what happened on 7 October is absolutely reprehensible and must be condemned. It cannot be justified on the grounds that it was carried out to exercise the right of defence against colonisation or in the fight to build a Palestinian state. No.

People ask: ‘Don’t the Palestinians also have the right to defend themselves?’ But what happened on 7 October was not an act of defence. It was a premeditated act of terror, attacking defenceless civilians.

We have to make this point as many times as is necessary, because it seems that some people don’t want to hear it when some of us say it. We also have to make clear that the Molotov cocktails thrown at synagogues in Berlin and the anti-Semitic slogans used on the other side of the world in Sydney have nothing to do with expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. They only represent the old hatred directed against the Jewish people – a hatred that marked the worst period in Europe’s history and which we must fight every day without exception and without hesitation.

Does it need repeating again? We can repeat it every day, but that doesn’t mean we ignore what is happening in the West Bank with settlements that are in breach of United Nations resolutions. Nor does it mean we play down the mistakes that may have been made by both sides in this tragedy that has been going on for far too long.

If we want to talk about laws and rights, we can listen to the very person responsible for applying those laws and rights – the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court – when he points out that his task and his mission have to be carried out not on the basis of emotion but on the basis of objective and verifiable evidence. He is conducting the necessary investigation to respond to what we are currently experiencing as a tragedy, but which will later give way to legal actions when charges are brought against the defence.

We must not confuse emotion with reason. Emotions are running high in that part of the world. But here we must try to overcome our emotions to see a way through, and forge a path together towards peace. This peace cannot be achieved, however, solely through the military destruction of a terrorist organisation; but it can be founded on the hopes of the Palestinian people of living in freedom and dignity. Without that, there can be no peace.

Peace is not simply something that is needed for moral reasons. Now it is very fashionable to talk about virtue. But it’s not simply a question of virtue. It’s a matter of absolute necessity. And who is most in need of a Palestinian state? Israel. Because the best guarantee of peace and security for Israel is the existence of a Palestinian state that forms part of the international order and respects a just coexistence. This is what we must invest in.

And now, allow me to digress a little, to discuss something Spanish. Mr [Antonio] López Istúriz, Spain is not the President of the European Council. As far as I know, Mr Charles Michel is the President of the European Council, not the Spanish government. The Spanish government has the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, which is something quite different. Responsibility for international affairs has been transferred to me, the High Representative. So, if you want to criticise anyone, criticise me.

But there’s no doubt that I will need your support more than your criticism. Because, believe me, it is very difficult to find a balance when everyone is dealing only with their own pain, which is entirely natural. When nobody wants to talk about the future, because everybody is rooted in the present. When one side wants to finish off Hamas and the other wants to prevent more deaths of its people.

But there will be a future – a day after tomorrow. And that is when the European Union will have to make a date with history and be in a position to contribute further – as the good Samaritan who not only tries to help minimise the damage that has already been caused, but who also tries to prevent any further damage from arising. This is not just about all the humanitarian aid that my colleague Janez [Lenarčič] is organising so admirably; it is also about making a political commitment, so that this humanitarian aid cannot and must not be used for healing wounds. Because what is the point of eating well one night if you are going to be bombed to death the next day? 

What we have to do is provide humanitarian aid and make a political commitment, to tackle both fronts. I hope that the Parliament will contribute actively to this solution and overcome its logical differences.

Thank you.