Proposition 54K0721

Proposition de résolution visant à la reconnaissance de l'Etat palestinien par la Belgique.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sarah Claerhout, Peter Luykx, Servais Verherstraeten
MR Denis Ducarme, Kattrin Jadin
N-VA Peter De Roover
Open Vld Patrick Dewael, Nele Lijnen
∉ Hendrik Vuye

Submission date

Dec. 17, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Palestine question Palestine resolution of parliament national independence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 5, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Dear colleagues, the resolution that we are presenting here with the four majority parties for approval is a more than interesting matter, for three reasons.

First, it is about world peace. We all know what the Middle East is.

Secondly, it is actually also about internal peace in our own country, because the theme, namely the Palestinian cause and the wars and conflicts that are raging there, undoubtedly also lives in our big cities.

Third, for our group, it is a ⁇ important resolution, as it deals with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, within the framework of a two-state solution.

We must take into account the international political context and ask the question of how we can make a useful contribution and go beyond the talk in the gallery. The possibilities for this house, when it comes to world peace, are of course limited, but that does not mean that we must lessen our frustration over the events and allow the slow peace process to flow further into powerlessness.

The powerlessness of this House may also be a seeming powerlessness, for we advocate considering many things within the broad framework of the European Union. It is interesting to point out that in the past it has been shown that the United States is following our decisions from the European Union rather than taking the lead in this regard. I give the example of the recognition of Palestine as an observer member of the United Nations, where we and the European Union have played a leading role. We want to continue that path.

The playground on the ground is a terrain full of distrust and inequality. Let us not forget that it is Israel, as a recognized state, and Palestine, which does not yet have that status. Empathy is more than appropriate. At the same time, we must be careful that we stimulate the peace process and not block it by immediate measures.

It is careful action that guides us, for we enter a porcelain box. It may not be intended that this house will play extremists on one side or the other of the barrier in this very delicate process. Therefore, the content of the resolution includes five key points.

First, as principled advocates of the right to self-determination of peoples, we are very pleased that we can unwaveringly recognize the Palestinian State with the group.

Second, we choose a smart timing. This means that recognition becomes part of a process and no longer rewards after completion.

Third, we name the leaders and responsibilities on both sides and give them a name. As we, on the one hand, understand the sensitivities, both on the Israeli and on the Palestinian side, we, on the other hand, must dare to name the excesses on both sides.

Fourth, contrary to what has been suggested about the resolution – whoever has read it well has understood it – we do not impose fixed conditions, but we take into account the context as it develops diplomatically.

Fifth, we strongly support the EU. Our resolution is therefore consistent with what has been agreed on in other Member States over the past few weeks, including in the European Parliament. A similar signal in the various parliaments is, of course, much more powerful.

The resolution — and whoever denies it is seeing-blind — is an important and unseen step. We hope that it may have a snowball effect and yet revitalize the crippled peace process.

This issue should go beyond party politics, dear colleagues. I have also called for this in the committee, but unfortunately the debate that took place there has taught us that the opposition wants to go in a different direction. The opposition wears the garment of the self-declared monopoly on the great moral equality. She chose a piece for the gallery. I think we should call that a sad attempt to score cheap points on the cap of the inhabitants of Palestine and Israel. I deeply regret that.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Roover, when it is difficult in a political debate, people sometimes accuse their opponents of political games; that is a well-known rhetorical trick. Honestly, I do not understand exactly where you get it from.

You attended the discussion in the committee.

Per ⁇ we differ in opinion. It has nothing to do with political games. We are convinced and are ready to tell you what we think about this resolution, which you as a great pioneer defend. You are the first to submit this resolution, and thus the N-VA took the lead in approving a resolution that is ⁇ vague and vague. Your resolution gives the government too much freedom to do what it wants.

I don’t want to accuse you of naivety, because I don’t want to play political games, but I want to refer to the facts. If this Parliament approves your vague, non-senatorial resolution, it is first and foremost a question to the Foreign Minister, Mr Reynders. I would therefore like to refer to the words of our Minister of Foreign Affairs from a committee report of 19 November 2014. It is very clear what Minister Reynders thinks of a possible recognition of Palestine and of this resolution. I quote from the report: “Belgium has always supported the two-state solution and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. This principled stance indeed means, in fine, at the end of a negotiation process, the recognition of a Palestinian state.”A little later, the minister also said: “...after both parties have reached agreement on the main points that are part of the conflict.”

In other words, Mr. De Roover, the Belgian government has no intention at all to recognize Palestine unless we as Parliament unequivocally ask for it. This question of doing so unconditionally and as quickly as possible is in the resolution of my group and a number of other opposition groups. You are a fool of a Belgian government. You set a number of conditions and that is it. You say that the Belgian government can consider a number of elements: European consensus, consultation, and so on. In fact, you give the Belgian government a license to do nothing at all. For a nationalist party, which advocates the right to self-determination, this is ⁇ disappointing.

Mr. De Vriend, I would like to note that you differ in your opinion on this issue. That we have a little more confidence in this government than you have, no one will be surprised. I think you said little shocking about this.

In the committee, we have never denied you or anyone else the right to express a different opinion. What it is about here is that you create the impression that you are on the side of the great moral equality and that the other side apparently wraps in all sorts of curves to fabricate a wooly text. I am surprised that you want to make that impression, because either you are blind seeing, or you have not read the text.

Per ⁇ the debate will be long enough so that you will still be able to get acquainted with the resolution as we have submitted it, and so that you will join the proposal that we are pushing forward by the end of this discussion under the motto of progressive understanding.

You may later repeat the word “wolliness” on the speech floor, under the motto: if one says very often that something is woolish, the sheep will think that it is still true too.

I can tell you that those who are willing to look at the resolution, and who do not refer to other texts, because I think we will vote on the text as it presents, see that this resolution goes far beyond what has ever proved possible in this Chamber. We have, with this majority, accomplished what you have not accomplished in previous legislatures. For example, the sp.a has never been able to establish a majority, Mr. Van der Maelen, who approved such an extensive text.

I would have found it very nice if you had referred to earlier times, when you were still at the wheel, if you were able to find a majority then to approve such an extensive text that at the same time does not have the subtlety of an elephant in a porcelain store.

Mr. De Roover, you probably forget that we have assumed our responsibilities. We have worked for Palestine to be recognized as a member of UNESCO, for it to be recognized as a non-member observer of the UN.

You are still smoking the majority by advancing completely unbearable transgressions!

I am very pleased that you refer to great steps forward, but we are taking a step further. We go beyond what you refer to, no matter how woolish it may be called.

I would like to propose to Mr. From Roover a small exercise.

Mr. De Roover, we are aware of your party’s values in terms of recognition and independence. I would like to invite you to put yourself in our place and to replace the terms Palestinian State with Flemish Region and to apply a number of conditions as foolish as those you are formulating today. Then put it back into debate and see if then you would not be a little more sensitive to the arguments brought today!

I am indeed surprised by the position of your group when you look historically at the positions you have taken and your lightness in accepting the conditions placed on the table for Palestine. Put yourself in a different perspective, imagine conditions impossible to ⁇ , and you will understand our position!

De Roover, you want to support me. M is The friend said that your resolution was silly. You are not in agreement with his words. I agree with you. Your resolution is not blatant. It is a resolution for the non-recognition of the Palestinian state. All simply !

I would like to read a quote: “I support the initiative that wants to see the right of self-determination of the European peoples recognized within the European Union as a fundamental human right and wish that all European institutions support all European citizens and their nations if they wish to apply this right.”

Mr. De Roover, can I ask you where do you see the difference between Kosovars and Catalans, who invoke their right to self-determination, and Palestinians? Can you explain this to me?

Mr. Van der Maelen and the colleagues who spoke, there are no more dangerous politicians than those who think they are active in a laboratory. We are active in a real world with a real context. You are, if you do not take that into account, someone who plays for the domestic galleries, who wants to score on the cover of the problem. If you are blind, dear colleagues, to the specific context, not the Kosovo context, but the context of the Middle East with the whole broad and historically separate problemology, then you will understand that some caution here is much more important than the elevation of cheap numbers and the finding of laboratory truths, which in reality are not useful and have the opposite effect.

I will respond later, but you ask the opposition to read the majority resolution. Do you remember that in the debate in the committee I pointed out a contradiction between the Dutch and the French-language versions, and not a detail? In the Dutch text it was stated that a change to the 1967 borders should be done “in consultation”, while in French it was stated “en accord”. Mr. De Roover, do you know what that means? The text is written at the Cabinet of Foreign Affairs. The text was written by the MR and the N-VA swallowed it. You wanted to enter the government so much that you have preserved your own values and principles. That and nothing else is the truth.

Mr Van der Maelen, your excitement is inversely proportional to the content of your intervention. We have written a text, together with the colleagues of the majority.

The MR...

As you follow the debates here, you may have already noticed that the MR is part of this majority. The MR is fully in there, just like the N-VA.

I am very pleased that you pushed the quote forward. As a supporter of the fundamental right of self-determination of the peoples, I am ⁇ proud that we can approve this here today, that we can advance this principle here for a broad House Majority – I invite you to join it – in this very sensitive political matter.

I will show you in one clear sentence what the difference is between the approach of your resolutions and that of us. While the opposition remains attached to the easy what-question, we have bowed ourselves over the much more difficult how-question. It is very comfortable not to do that exercise, but we take our responsibility to also look at the how-question and not get stuck in pure theoretical big concepts.

We would like to accept one complaint: this resolution suffers from a manifest lack of unilaterality. The question of whether the N-VA is wearing a shirt or an arafat shell is a problem that we want to overcome. It is necessary that in this very delicate situation – which affects both world peace and very often affects the debates in our own streets, in our big cities – we can and dare to transcend the thinking in camps. That is the essence of this resolution.

I would like to once again invite the opposition to take this very important step, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, Chamberbreed. The more powerful the signal will be. If you continue to lock yourself in your great equality of principles, without wondering how you will realize it, then we will approve this resolution with the normal majority.

Mr De Roover, you agree with me that in your draft resolution you do not ask for prompt and unconditional recognition of the Palestinian State. You attach a reservation. I will give an example. You ask the government to take into account the existence of a full-fledged Palestinian government with authority over the entire Palestinian territory. The latter, note bene, is not in the hands of that Palestinian government, but is blocked by the annexation by Israel. What you ask, therefore, simply cannot be; it is completely unattainable and illusory.

Apart from that, I really want to ask you what your party still thinks to do to encourage Israel to respect international law. We ask in our submitted text for the prompt, unconditional recognition of the Palestinian State, because we believe that recognition will give oxygen to the debate. We think it would be a very powerful political signal towards Israel. It must be done with the violations of international law.

Mr. De Roover, do you think that Israel is violating international law or not? In the long run, I really do not know exactly what reactionary position the N-VA still holds on the conflict between Israel and Palestine today. I would like to point out that even our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Reyners, effectively speaks about Israeli violations of international law. Do you share that point of view of the MR and Didier Reynders, or do you think there is nothing wrong at all?

If you find that there is a problem, what do you suggest to get out of the impasse in the Middle East? What could a country like Belgium do? We are talking about recognition of Palestine here, but we can also, for example, put some extra pressure on Israel by labelling Israeli products from the illegal settlements or by banning the import of those products.

Mr. De Roover, you treat the opposition here with a certain dedain, but we are indeed busy looking for creative leverages and instruments. I ask for your tools. What can Belgium do to get out of the impasse in the Middle East unless you accept the status quo? In the latter case, the time is ripe for this position of the N-VA to be clearly on the table here.

Mr. De Roover, I would like to react and register false in relation to an element that you have cited and which I would not want to remain here as it is. You said that you cannot choose between the kippa or the Palestinian hood.

In doing so, Mr. De Roover, you are suggesting that this is not a political issue. The kippa is a sign of belonging to a religious community. It is therefore not a matter of choosing between the kippa and the Palestinian hood.

The Israeli question that concerns us is a question of Israeli politics and not a question of belonging to a religious community. I am, therefore, false about this choice that you impose on us in the context of this debate.

I will immediately answer the last one. I can reassure you. Imaging is Imaging.

It is indeed about a political conflict, in which we just now, and then I come to Mr. De Vriendt, do not make a choice between and express no preference for what would be called the Israeli or Palestinian cause. After all, a solution can only be a solution if we can exceed that division, as the whole content of the resolution shows.

Mr. De Vriendt, you just talked about a well-known political technique. You also used one. When your arguments are on, you start on a very different topic, such as labelling or international law. These are very important issues, but these are not discussed in this resolution, neither in your version nor in our version.

It is not about this. In the next discussion on this, we will be very pleased to get involved. Furthermore, as regards the violation of the rules of international law, I can reassure you. Our reactionary N-VA uses no other standards than the rest of the world, and we have absolutely the same opinion as our Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example.

What I find very strong is your reference to our hope and the element we want to take into consideration, namely that the entire Palestinian territory... I refer to the quote you give. Initially, this is not a condition. You must read the text as it stands there. It is an element within which the diplomatic freedom of this government will be used.

I would like to briefly go into this. How can a blind resolution be submitted? “Let’s recognize Palestine.” You may score here, but not in Palestine itself. This does not advance the matter a millimeter.

You will be surprised, but we are talking about the case of the Palestinians on the ground. Blindly proclaiming recognition does not help them step forward. What is the meaning of a Palestinian state if there is no government capable of carrying out its normal activities throughout the entire territory? You start a Palestinian State that in its own birthbed has everything from a failed state, a kind of new Somalia, a country where civil development cannot take place in any decent way. You choose a blind recognition of something that is not viable when we put it out of context.

We do not play that game, Mr. De Vriendt, no matter how beautiful that may sound for anyone who approaches the matter simplistically.

So you cannot seduce me – that is the whole content of this resolution – to this sort of black-and-white thinking. We have made a choice in the resolution that takes into account both the correct and fair concerns of Israel and the correct and fair concerns of Palestine and the Palestinians, and that does not exclude untouched unilateralism.

I think you do not really help the debate if you continue to get stuck in that black-and-white approach that we intended to leave with this resolution. We ask the government to recognize the Palestinian State within a space of diplomatic development.

That is the fundamental difference of opinion. If we cannot convince you, we will only approve that resolution.

You can also include your comment in your own discussion later, Mr. De Vriendt.

I will be very brief.

I would like to point out to those who follow this debate or will read this later in the report that Mr. De Roover has not answered my question on how his N-VA group wants to increase pressure on Israel so that they respect international law and there is a beginning of a way out of the impasse in the Middle East.

An unconditional recognition of Palestine is, in our view, a lever for this.

We are ready for an open debate, but I await your alternative. What are your proposals so far? I have already asked it in the committee. I asked for it today. I have not heard anything about the N-VA.

Mr. De Friend, you heard the answers, but you did not listen. Listening and listening are two verbs with different meanings.

In this resolution we say very clearly, unlike before, that the recognition of the Palestinian State is not the candy, not the cherry on the cake when it is baked. We have already said that this can be part of the process. In other words, no party has the monopoly to determine when we take that step.

If you don’t understand that difference from before to this resolution, then this debate doesn’t make sense, because then you don’t listen, and then it doesn’t make sense to pull on candles and glasses.

February 5, 2015 could have been a historic date for the Belgian diplomacy and for our Assembly. This could have been the day when the Belgian Parliament, like so many others in Europe, adopted a text paving the way for the recognition of the State of Palestine. In the end, it will be nothing.

Instead, we are asked today to vote on a majority text that de facto prevents this recognition of the State of Palestine by our Kingdom.

Dear colleagues of the majority, do you really believe that we cannot read a device? Do you really believe that it was enough to put the words “recognition” and “Palestine” side by side in the title of a resolution so that those and those who call for this recognition in Belgium, Europe, Palestine and Israel do not realize the game of deceit you are engaged in?

With your text, there is simply no recognition! How can we explain the weakness of this text? How can we explain otherwise that you have rejected our proposals that demand formal, immediate and unconditional recognition of Palestine? Or, how can you explain your committee rejection of our comprehensive amendment, based on the text adopted by the Brussels Parliament, which, unambiguously, demanded the recognition of the State of Palestine? This text of the Brussels Parliament was co-signed by the PS, the sp.a, Ecolo-Groen, the FDF, the cdH and even the CD&V. In this regard, in addition, you will allow me to question the political coherence of your group on this major international theme.

This hypocritical position is simply not at the height of the constructive and voluntary position that our country has always defended, a supporter of a balanced solution.

This text, if adopted, would, in fact, constitute one of the most mediocre resolutions adopted by the parliament of a Member State of the European Union.

If the majority confirms its choice and rejects our texts and amendments, it will miss an opportunity to contribute to the resumption of the peace process.

Nevertheless, the conflict in the Middle East has undermined, for decades now, international relations, the stability of this neighboring region of Europe and, above all, the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli populations. It is a global source of undeniable radicalization.

In the face of this ongoing conflict, Belgium has always been the adherent of a respectful approach to international law – which is important for us, Mr. De Roover – and which must aim at the recognition of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, which includes the end of the occupation of Palestinian territories as well as the right to the security of the State of Israel and its inhabitants. This approach must be the same for all parties present.

In this context, our country must demand from all said parties that they respect international law. It is in this sense that it is necessary to condemn the acts of violence perpetrated by all parties, as well as the continuation of the policy of colonization, which undermine any chance of resumption and conclusion of a negotiation process leading to peace.

Only the urgent and effective resumption of negotiations with a view to reaching a solution based on the coexistence of two states, the State of Israel and the independent, democratic, one-sided, sovereign and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security for all, can constitute a long-term solution.

It was in this spirit that my group had submitted an unambiguous resolution proposal with a primary request, clear, readable and without unrealistic or interpretable conditions, namely a request to the federal government to formally recognize the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. One point is all.

We are thus following the recent parliamentary initiatives of several European countries such as Great Britain, Ireland or France.

Sweden, as you know, was the first European country not from the former USSR to courageously take the step towards the formal recognition of Palestine as a state. Debates in this regard also took place in all the parliaments of the federated entities in a voluntary and balanced approach through the adoption of the various texts.

We are well aware that these initiatives will not operate an immediate upheaval that would immediately bring a definitive solution to a complex historical conflict. But today it is about making our contribution to the conclusion of a peaceful solution by refusing to stand still at the annihilation of any future of sustainable peace in the region.

It is right at the federal level that it is up to today to recognize a state, and therefore it is legitimately on us that all eyes are broken. Recognizing Palestine now would constitute in the head of Belgium a strong diplomatic act, supporting the peace process and the principle of a negotiated and definitive solution between the parties, a full and complete accountability of these two parties on an equal footing. Belgium would thus confirm its positive role in favor of peace and equity in this peace process, a process that has yet to be achieved and in which the absence of a two-state structural solution is the source of tensions, human suffering and regional and global destabilization.

Today, despite the successive negotiation processes, we must collectively assume responsibility for our failures. We have not yet succeeded in ending the colonization, in delivering a satisfactory response to the security of the Israeli people, or in responding to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Too much blood has already shed in this conflict. Therefore, it is indispensable today to find other strategies, other paths. We believe that this recognition will make it possible to set the necessary milestones for positive developments that enable everyone to respect international law. I want to be clear on this point. Criticising certain policies of Israel is neither being against that state, nor not recognizing its right to security and to guarantee the protection of its civilians. It is simply to demand that this rule of law, a member of the UN, respects international law.

At the PS, our approach has always been consistent in all international situations. We are resolutely for diplomacy, proportionality, and above all against all the double standards of the international community.

No state is above international law, whatever it is. This is the position that Belgium has always defended. Belgium has always defended the importance of respecting the rules of international law as well as the recognition of the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, whether in Belgium's vote under the previous government in 2012 in favor of Palestine's accession to the status of non-member observer state to the UN, in the vote in 2011 for the admission of Palestine as a member state of UNESCO or again, in 2011, in the Senate vote on the draft resolution calling for the recognition of the State of Palestine.

This commitment of Belgium for a contribution to a peaceful solution to the conflict, unfortunately, you risk to stop it net because, this role of iron lance of peace, I absolutely do not find it in the resolution that is submitted to us today by the majority in this plenary session and, this, after very long circumvolutions. Unnecessary circularities if it is to give birth to such a mediocre text!

It is true that some in the majority seem to have more courageous positions than others, since the CD&V, too, abstained from our recommendation proposing the formal recognition of the Palestinian State, a recommendation that had been rejected by all other majority groups.

The text of the majority is about making a lot of noise for not much. If the press titled, when it was published, "Belgium will recognize Palestine", it is that it had not yet fully acknowledged the measures contained in this resolution. But, in reality, talking about obstacles to the recognition of Palestine would be more just regarding this text.

In my opinion and according to the main organizations attentive to this question, your text, your vision of recognition is only a mirage whose materialization is subject to the goodwill of the Belgian government, Minister Reynders and above all to the white-seing of the Israeli government. Do you want to wait for the right moment? For you, this will never be the right time! There may never be a unanimous position of the European Union. You know it properly well.

However, my dear colleagues of the majority, it is not too late! You can still adopt the overall amendment of the PS, sp.a, Ecolo-Groen and FDF, replacing your text with the text of the Brussels Parliament. This amendment, which completely modifies your resolution, would enable our assembly to finally really make a strong and positive move towards the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the peaceful coexistence of two states.

This act would grow Belgium by expressing a position as courageous as necessary.

I know you don’t really want to recognize this state. So I can understand that you did not vote for our overall amendment. Since you advocate that we follow the current course at European level, I thought you might be less reluctant to vote on the text adopted by Europe. But I am sure that on this point again, you will face an end of not receiving. I am convinced that your real will is not to adopt a resolution that will really allow the recognition of Palestine.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, I think today is finally the time for the majority groups to make a clear act in the plenary session. Yes or No, is the state of Palestine now recognized?

In any case, you came out of the wood because in commission, you rejected the texts that the opposition deposited.

To conclude, I can tell you that if the overall amendment that is submitted today to your vote is rejected, my group will vote against the majority text as it is submitted to us for all the reasons I have just presented to you.

Thank you for your attention and hope you support our amendment.

Mr Grovonius, much of your argument is absolutely not in conflict with my statement, nor with the content of the draft resolution.

You won’t be the last, as I expect a few more members to repeat your attempt. Soon, Sp.a, Green and Ecolo will likely make the same accusations. You again create the impression that the preceding text would set strict conditions. I urge you to read the text, because that is not true.

Mrs. Grovonius, I just want to lose this for a moment. The European Parliament’s resolution, which was also approved by the Socialist Group, states: “Supports in principle the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, and believes these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced.”

Mrs. Grovonius, in fact, our proposal for a resolution fits entirely in the context of that principled recognition, a principled recognition that may have been formulated even slightly sharper in our text.

On the one hand, you know very well that you formulate other conditions in your resolution proposal. We mentioned them. Whether it is in particular the question of full and complete authority over the territory in a context where, we know, 60% of Zone C is occupied by the Israelis, which, de facto, makes it impossible to implement this condition.

I take you to the word. If you are so much on the same wavelength as the European position, vote this text, let’s vote this text.

The debate has already taken place in the committee. We have repeatedly asked Mr. De Roover to submit an amendment that would be the resolution voted in the European Parliament. You were even offered the first signature, which you refused.

What you say about the resolution is false. You condition the recognition of the Palestinian state to the existence of a full-time government on two parts of Palestine that, as we know, will take years to recover. The European Parliament resolution does not envisage what you say at all. You condition the resumption of talks between Israelis and Palestinians while the European resolution provides, as you said, for it to be simultaneous.

Our point of view is that recognizing the Palestinian state can be a step forward in this Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. And it is simultaneous, as the European Parliament’s resolution states.

P.S. Please submit this text as an amendment to your resolution. We will sign it and vote on it.

The majority does not want the immediate and unconditional recognition of the Palestinian state. Convinced that his procedure will be more effective for the recognition of the Palestinian State, Mr. Can De Roover tell us within what time he believes that by following his procedure, the Palestinian State will be recognized? If it fails to ⁇ a goal within a reasonable time, will it accept unconditional recognition of the Palestinian state? Can he take that commitment?

However, I would like to point out that our draft resolution goes even further than the resolution adopted in the European Parliament, following the necessary rearrangements and rewritings, parallel to the discussions that took place here, and which was approved by the Socialists in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Mr Van der Maelen, read what is stated in the proposed text and do not give the impression that there is something else. I understand that you are ⁇ upset because your party counterparts in the European Parliament have not been able to ⁇ what we have achieved. We took them in speed, we passed them to the left and to the right. I can assume you are ⁇ disturbing that. I have a great deal of understanding for your excitement, but the fact remains that we go beyond that resolution.

I propose that this be included as a broadcast for school television under the motto “Doveman conversation, how does this go.” This is an example of it, because you remain with unprecedented stubbornness, worthy of a better affair, giving the impression that our proposed resolution would be conditional, no matter how much we deny that this is the case, no matter how clear the texts make it not so. Mrs. Grovonius, colleagues of the opposition, she is not. It makes no sense to deny it 36 times. So let them be denied once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in view of the danger of pointing out the opposition to the literal text of the resolution here for the 37th or in the meantime already for the 38th time, I have searched in the Van Dale Groot dictionary of the Dutch language what “condition” means, a word with which we are heard from all sides. By the way, it is not a text of the N-VA, because it is not a domestic political settlement with the N-VA. It is a majority resolution. Well, if there is a condition, then it means that a limitation is imposed in advance and that I don’t read anywhere. You keep repeating this here stoically.

“Calm, calumniate, there will always be something.”

Well, that will not succeed here, because we will continue to repeat in our own way that you have to say where that word appears in the proposal for a resolution. It is not there.

I did not consult the Van Dale, I did not consult the Larousse or the Little Robert. Nevertheless, when it is said: "We will recognize the State of Palestine if the Palestinian Authority has control over the entire territory, if the peace process is resumed ... " For me, these are conditions. I am sorry!

Mr. De Roover, I have been listening to you since recently with a lot of fun and I am not the only one: I see your group, your own majority smile when you say that your resolution goes beyond that of the European Parliament. It’s quite overwhelming to say that!

In my opinion, your resolution is obviously well in withdrawal, it is blurred and it conditiones. By the way, the text in Dutch is even clearer than in French: "Te herkennen op basis van ... ". If a text is even clearer in French, it is this one: it conditiones recognition to a series of elements that, as we all know, are now inaccessible. This is the problem: the peace process has been disturbed since 1993 and part of the Palestinian territory has been occupied for about fifty years.

It is from this logic that we want to come out; but your resolution falls into it, it persists in this logic. It is clear that you are returning the recognition of the Palestinian state to the Greek calendas.

I can tell you, though with a certain feeling of fatigue, that we will not approve the resolution that you claim we will approve. We will approve the resolution as it is presented and not as you are trying to frame it.

Of course, I am sorry, but I am not very surprised. We knew from the beginning that you had no real will in this case. I am comforted in the idea that was mine before going up to the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I thought that today’s debate would be strong. It is the case. Unprecedented also the fact of debating the recognition of the State of Palestine, a state that could already have been created under the auspices of the United Nations since 1947, seventy years ago!

In my opinion, as I said in a committee when we presented this resolution, which is put forward by the majority parties, I regret that we are no longer supporting it and taking part in this debate. It is of the utmost importance that it is the Parliament, the MEPs, all of us, dear colleagues, who initiate this debate. It is equally important to open up dialogue with the government which, in the end, will make this decision of recognition of the Palestinian state.

As parliamentarians, as the House of Representatives of Belgium, we thus fulfill our political role: supporting and controlling the government’s action on the one hand, but also, on the other hand, provoking and even calling for action on its part.

It is here that the parliamentary debate keeps all its noble letters in the intellectual reflection and the political dimension of our decisions. We know, dear colleagues, this situation is exceptional. The number of submissions testifies to this. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lasted long. The victims are numerous. We no longer count the unnecessary deaths, the refugees, or even the children without a future ready for anything to exist.

We want to say this strongly and vigorously, and we will be able to get back on that. For us, liberal reformers, it is very important to emphasize this here, far beyond the debates we have had, we are attached to the two peoples. I remind you that Palestine is one of eighteen partner countries of our development cooperation and that we are bound to the State of Israel by ties that go beyond the weight of history, and the history of its people.

We want to see peace finally establish in this region of the world.

Beyond the political shifts, the position of our diplomacy has been surprisingly constant. This has been said many times: the final settlement of the conflict and the advent of lasting peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by the coexistence of two sovereign and independent states. This peace will guarantee the security of every citizen in these two States. This peace will be the guarantee of mutual recognition by all States of the region. This peace will be strengthened by the implementation of a model of economic cooperation close to what we have built in Europe since the end of World War II.

That is the strength of our resolution. It is not about giving a gift or pleasing one or the other political ally on the international stage; we want the recognition of Palestine to be the starting point for a new Middle East, in particular the Oslo Agreements of 1993. That’s why I can say very clearly that our country must recognize the State of Palestine in order to ensure a better future for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is no doubt on this point. The recent votes of Belgium in favour of Palestine as a member of UNESCO and as an observer state not a member of the UN were the first steps. I reaffirm this position in the Assembly, as our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs have done before, of whom I would like to quote an excerpt from the General Policy Speech of November 2014.

"Belgium has always been in favor of a two-state solution and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security with and with Israel. This position of principle ultimately means recognition of a Palestinian state.

The question now arises is when should this recognition occur?”

Belgium, by a constant position, is both a friend of the Palestinians and a friend of Israel. So far, it has managed to obtain the listening and trust of both sides to weigh favorably on the modalities of a fair resolution, negotiated and accepted by both actors.

Our country has a major role to play in a coherent and lasting European diplomatic dynamic. We know that the only solution to the conflict is to establish direct and honest talks between the two sides. It is precisely through our resolution that we want to contribute to this.

Madame Jadin, I obviously agree with everything you say on the bottom. For this, it must be accomplished. You say that we are friends, both with Israel and with Palestine. To be friends is to recognize the dignity of the other. Belgium recognized Israel quite quickly. Belgium has not yet recognized Palestine. It is a lack of dignity, and it is not giving dignity to Palestine, which you call our friend, that it is not recognizing it. Today, we have a lot of important economic relations with Israel. We would like, as friends, to have the same economic relations with Palestine. This is impossible because, today, another friend, Israel, prevents the economic development of Palestine and prevents us from having the same level of economic relations with this Palestinian state. To give this dignity to this friend, or at least to the one you call your friend, recognize now, immediately, Palestine!

Mr. Hellings, I hear your arguments. These are the ones you have also produced in the commission. I think that through the resolution that we have submitted and which we obviously wish to see achieved today, we have well developed in our considerations our desire to go there step by step. I just repeated it. I take as proof the recognition within the UN agencies, the recognition by Belgium also of Palestine in other international agencies, as well as the involvement of our country through development cooperation.

To recognize the Palestinian State, there must be conditions that allow the framework to be planted, as we have ... Dear colleagues, you have read this resolution. In fact, I believe that there must be a framework that should allow, in a suitable time, to recognize the Palestinian state.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow it, I will continue my presentation.

Indeed, this peace, we have known its parameters for a long time. It must be based on the existence of two sovereign and democratic states, living side by side in peace and security, on the basis of the borders determined in 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.

The definition of these parameters can be found in the Security Council resolution 242, in the Madrid negotiations, then in the Oslo agreements, at the Camp David or Taba summits, or in the last unsuccessful attempt by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

In the face of this impasse, in the face of an Obama administration living in its last months, a period unfavourable for intense diplomatic efforts, European states must take the initiative and make strong gestures, in line with the values that our old continent has long defended.

These are the political bases found in the text co-signed by the Reform Movement, the Open Vld, the N-VA and the CD&V. A text whose importance cannot be underestimated, both for our assembly, but for this whole region of the world. And I am indeed pleased that the House of Representatives can make a constructive contribution to this debate that has developed in several European states since last September.

I can also rejoice at the richness of our exchanges, as well as the method we have used to result in this resolution. Indeed, since October, we invited the two ambassadors to our Foreign Affairs Committee; they were able to present their views and those of their respective governments. We also had the opportunity to present all the submitted resolution proposals. Finally, here two weeks ago, we were able to hold this contradictory debate that leads us to vote today, I hope, this resolution.

The Reform Movement has long defended the principle that the recognition of the State of Palestine must take place within the framework of a comprehensive and definitive settlement of the conflict, negotiated by both sides. We are aware of the enormous difficulties of every aspect, every line, every detail of this global regulation.

We also know that this bilateral agreement is only viable through a regional agreement. Given the situation in the region, this agreement will be difficult to reach.

Israel can only live in full security in a peaceful regional environment. This security of the State of Israel and its people requires full recognition of the State of Israel by all Palestinian parties, including Hamas, and all countries in the region, including Iran.

The road is going to be long, everyone knows it. But we cannot accept a symbolic recognition, a recognition for itself, a recognition that would not be followed by any concrete effect, principles that I find in most of the texts that have been deposited. A unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state without negotiations, without conditions, is, on the one hand, bad for the credibility of our diplomacy and, on the other hand, counterproductive for the interests of the Middle East peace parties.

Madame Jadin, you say that the solution is the discussion.

Since 1993, all the countries you mentioned have been discussing. What has this given? Did this result in less Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands? No to No! Did this bring peace? No to No!

There is today an effective way of being able to force Israel to stop the colonization that makes the peace process impossible and, de facto, the very existence of Palestine is to recognize the State of Palestine! The rest, we have already done it. It is not effective.

If one day we recognize Palestine, if one day we succeed in pressuring Israel, as we should have done for years, to stop colonizing Palestine, in a few years, there will be no need to finance development cooperation in Palestine. We will then be able to sign a trade agreement with Palestine.

You seem very harmless. You have brought calm to this assembly, but I think it needs to be stopped. You continue to explain to us here that you are, with the majority, at the forefront of this desire to bring a new breath to Palestine. In fact, you said it yourself, you are in conflict with Mr. De Roover who sang us a song for an hour explaining to us that there were no conditions, that you went far beyond the European Parliament resolution. You say we need conditions.

Stop it ! Be consistent with the majority. Stop trying to tell us that you are right. The only one that is right is the one proposed today by the opposition, the one that seeks to recognize Palestine.

I ask you to be more synthetic because you hold on to things that are really starting to irritate us!

Mr. Kir, it is your strictest right to express yourself in this way. I also have the right to have my point of view. I think there is no reason, as you do, to say that everything is white or black, that there is a good and a bad resolution. I sincerely believe that this resolution will lay the framework for a faster recognition of the Palestinian state.

Mr. Schwartz, today’s comments are no different from yesterday’s ones. Your resolution is, you hear, positive insofar as it aims at a purely symbolic recognition of the Palestinian state.

For my part, like others, I believe that it would risk complicating the situation, that it would not change anything on the ground, and that it would not contribute to bringing peace to the Middle East.

Mrs Jadin, this unconditional and immediate resolution is consistent with the resolution adopted by the UK House of Commons. It can be summed up in one sentence: recognize Palestine. I would like to point out here that the House of Commons has no habit of making decisions that I would call “foolish.” In addition, it is noted that there is a domino effect. Other European Parliaments have adopted a resolution on immediate and unconditional recognition. I could be the ninth. Soon, the Palestinians will be able to be strong with the support of all European parliaments and negotiate on an equal footing with Israel.

The problem today lies in the fact that a strong partner, namely Israel, occupies the territories of a weak partner, namely Palestine.

If Palestine is recognized and you give it its dignity, you are strengthening the Palestinians in the aim of a negotiated peace with two states living side by side.

First of all, I want to say that I respect your point of view. I am not here to say that you serve us an insignificant discourse, but there is only one criterion that should guide us: the correct, full and complete application of international law. Yes or no, does international law tell us that the Palestinian people have a right to their state? and yes! Does international law require the recognition of the Palestinian state? No to ! What you put in your resolution is contrary to international law. There is nothing else to decide than full and full respect for international law!

This is the purpose of this resolution. I have said this three or four times, there is no doubt about the recognition of the Palestinian state. No doubt remains as to the recognition, in due course, by Belgium of the State of Palestine. Why Why ? Because we want a recognition that supports negotiation, that revives it and that forces the status quo unjust and unable.

We also know that a collective international effort in the service of peace is necessary and that our approach must merge into a European whole that has existed since 1980 and the Venice Declaration. This European approach is ⁇ imposed on us by the Treaties of the European Union. We must incorporate our foreign policies into a European line, but this approach will only be effective if it weighs a European weight.

We must also join the permanent members of the Security Council, the Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan. We want the recognition of a state, a government, a people, a territory. Our approach, through the adoption of this resolution, is to mark the government's reflection. This resolution could, I sincerely hope, counter the voices that, within the Israeli government itself, now seem to exclude the creation of any Palestinian state, a development that I consider to be very worrying and which we will observe closely during the next March elections.

This resolution could help Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his successor solve his number one problem, which is to seat his authority in Gaza and to withdraw this territory and this population from the grip of Hamas, an organization recognized as terrorist and which denies the very existence of the State of Israel.

This resolution is intended primarily to contribute to peace in the Middle East. I hope that at the end of our vote today, the government will commit itself, at the time it deems appropriate, to a full and full recognition of the State of Palestine.

Several resolutions were submitted with a view to recognizing Palestine. Is it coincidence? Of course not. It is now the momentum to move things there. In doing so, we must join forces to ensure that the political weight of Belgium in this issue is valid and to realize a set of objectives.

I have read all the resolutions carefully and we all share the same goal, in particular a lasting solution to the conflict, so that a sovereign and viable Palestinian State can exist safely and in peace with and alongside Israel. We have been dealing with that hopeless situation and the unwavering Israeli attitude. We must help to take steps towards solutions to the imminent conflict, to restart peace negotiations and to break the status quo.

At the same time, we all realize — we need to dive into the history of the conflict — that the dossier is not simple and that the situation is very complex. We all share these concerns and this is shown in all resolutions. That is why we found it so important to put this international issue on the agenda today. In the created climate of polarization, I keep emphasizing those shared concerns and the shared sense of responsibility that speaks out of it. We all have a responsibility towards the people involved and the millions of people in the Middle East.

Colleagues, the majority resolution is a resolution calling on the government to recognize Palestine as a state. In that resolution, we take the responsibility, as we think we should take it, to make an effective positive contribution by focusing on solutions within a political and diplomatic framework.

After all, recognition is a ⁇ important tool, which can only be used once. It should be handled very carefully and thoughtfully so that it would sort out a maximum positive effect. Again, recognition is an important tool.

This reasoning arises in the fact that the choice of the moment of recognition — and hopefully soon, for all clarity — takes into account a number of factors, which have been repeatedly addressed here. I think of the positive impact of recognition on the political negotiation process, so to get the negotiation process started, at its beginning or on the way. Another factor is the evolution of the joint European efforts in connection with the conflict. There is also the state of affairs regarding a stable Palestinian government and its authority over the territory. Furthermore, it is crucial in this regard that the recognized borders are those of before 1967.

It is these elements together that generate a political and diplomatic process that is indispensable for a lasting solution and that such recognition can produce as many positive effects as possible. If one does not realize recognition within such a framework, then one works in vain and does something symbolic.

With this majority resolution, we can exert pressure to play a role on all these points in order to ⁇ recognition as soon as possible. Just asking for a recognition hic et nunc, as a symbolic act, sounds, of course, much better and much more radical, but if our resolution pr-wise does not happen so strongly, so be it. What matters is that one assumes its political and diplomatic responsibility.

Per ⁇ there is indeed a small difference, in the sense that we have confidence in this government and its competent ministers. We are confident that, once the necessary diplomatic and political process has been launched, it will recognize Palestine as part of a two-state solution. In other words, we put a concrete result on the table here today. This resolution is a clear political signal with which we want to send a message to both sides in the conflict. We must resolutely oppose the undermining of a two-state solution. Israel’s current settlement policy is absolutely unacceptable for us. This resolution also clearly emphasizes the boundaries of 1967. I will continue to be very active in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

In accordance with Resolution No. Article 242 of the UN Security Council will also continue to call for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from the occupied territory.

The Palestinians have a right to a living Palestine. The destruction of development projects is unheard of and we must absolutely pay attention to that. However, we would also like to point out to the Palestinians their responsibility to bring internal order to work. We are very well aware that the struggle between Hamas and Fatah over control of Gaza has not become easier. In this sense, the security problems of Israel, the terrorism of Palestinian groups and the instability in the region are also real.

For a new momentum in the negotiations, a unanimous and conducted Palestinian government and a recognition of Israel’s right to exist by the Palestinians, and therefore also by Hamas, is a legitimate requirement.

For all these reasons, this resolution is not a shot in the veil. It is also not an attempt to block the debate. This resolution calls for recognition of the Palestinian State, but calls for it within a political-diplomatic framework. So we ask for something extra. Those elements are not deliberately or unnecessarily chosen to realize the so-called impossible, they are simply realities that are essential to come to a real, sustainable and behaved solution. One cannot simply ignore those things, one cannot close the eyes, one cannot escape those difficulties. Therefore, our hope is that this signal will be captured by both sides, will give rise to reflection and may lead to this hopelessly blocked situation getting a positive dynamic. It is our conviction that this resolution will be received in a more open atmosphere than so-called more punitive resolutions.

Because the government parties have jointly taken this initiative, it will be a strong signal for the parties to the conflict. As in the committee, I address again the opposition parties to emphasize that the only thing that can make us stronger in our efforts to weigh on the conflict is the joint support for this resolution. Together we can take a number of steps. We can continue to discuss this issue in the committee. Only jointly supporting this resolution can make our signal stronger.

The Palestinians and Palestinians are suffering. They have suffered for a long time, for too long. They suffer because they are in a situation of injustice, both morally and internationally.

You call on the opposition. At the same time, you tell us that recognizing the Palestinian State, according to the terms we have defined in our resolution, has a purely symbolic scope.

No, Madame, the aim of our resolution that brings recognition of the Palestinian State is to help the Palestinian side in the unbalanced relationship that is its against the Israeli side, to make sure that one simple but important thing can finally become a reality: the application of international law.

This is the resolution we have submitted. It is not symbolic, it is political. Unfortunately, you do not want to hear it; unfortunately, you will add to the misfortunes of the world with a resolution like yours, which does not see things as they are.

Mr. Speaker, I listen very carefully to everything that is said, especially from the majority, and I hear from the banks of the majority "the concern to meet the concerns of one and the other".

So I address a question to the majority and I would like to get a clear answer: what is the Palestinian position in relation to the text that you are submitting to us for voting?

We strongly demand the recognition of the Palestinian state. This is the subject of this resolution. This is constantly reversed and reversed. What we’re adding is intended to place something in a political and diplomatic framework, allowing steps to be taken. The issue is clearly the recognition of the Palestinian state.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have heard different views from the majority and the opposition. I think we should start with what we have in common. Everyone in this Chamber wants peace in the Middle East and in particular in Israel and Palestine.

This conflict has been going on for too long. For too long innocent women, children and men have suffered from this situation, from the lack of opportunities and the lack of security. For too long, international rules have been undermined. For too long, fundamentalism, violence and terrorism have been used as a way to continue to wreak the conflict.

We all want a Palestinian state. This has been the consistent attitude of all Belgian governments in any political composition. We support a solution that will allow the two states, Israel and Palestine, to coexist in peace and security.

It is on this basis that we, the applicants, stand for this resolution. That is our horizon. All our diplomatic efforts are aimed at this goal.

Now the debate revolves around the question of when recognition should take place and under what conditions. We also want to constantly compare our resolution with that of other EU Member States.

I have no problem with this, but I find it important to clarify what considerations we make as a majority in our country. We really join the current European movement to get a shot in this matter.

This is also what the European Parliament calls for in its December resolution: a principle recognition in European consultation.

Our resolution is fully involved in this process of European alignment.

I look at the various resolutions that have been adopted by the European countries.

For Ireland, for example, it is said, among other things, that it officially recognizes the State of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders but there is no condition, the famous three conditions that are found on page 7 of your resolution, Mr. De Roover.

The English resolution says this: The House of Commons believes that the government should recognize the State of Palestine alongside Israel as a contribution to a negotiated peace solution. Nothing more. There are still not the three conditions that are on page 7 of your resolution.

For France, the National Assembly calls on the government to recognize the State of Palestine in order to obtain a definitive settlement of the conflict. Nothing more.

You are not participating in the process, the domino that I was talking about before. You are not participating! Your resolution rather resembles that of Spain, which is the complete counter-example.

Belgium, by voting today on this resolution, does not participate in the domino effect you claim to incarnate.

We differ in opinions, Mr. Hellings, as you have done with many of my colleagues today.

I brought my iPad again to repeat again what we are asking right now. “We ask the Government to recognize the Palestinian State as a subject of international law at the time it is deemed most appropriate, based, among other things, on the following elements: first, the positive impact of this recognition so that a comprehensive political negotiation process between Israel and Palestine can be restarted or supported; second, the evolution of the consultation between the Member States of the European Union and the efforts of the European Union to support the peace process; and third, the existence of a full-fledged Palestinian government with authority over the entire Palestinian territory.”

We are convinced that this is in line with the European resolution adopted in December. Our resolution is fully in line with this process of European alignment.

Madame Lijnen, does this mean in concrete terms that if the Palestinian government does not exercise its full authority over Gaza and the West Bank, the Belgian government will still be able to recognize the State of Palestine?

Mr. Hellings, we ask our government to recognize the Palestinian State on the basis of a number of issues. I cannot continue to repeat it.

Let me now come to our position. I would rather explain how we determined our position as a group. Our approach is an optimistic approach. Without always looking at everything pink, we have hope in a good ending. Optimists see every disaster from the past in the light of a positive future expectation. That message of hope is needed today in Israel and in Palestine. That a solution is possible, this resolution states. As a group, we are unanimously and 100% in favour.

Madame Lijnen, I listen to you as I have listened to the other members of the majority who have expressed themselves so far. Each of you says something somewhat contradictory. by Mr. De Roover said that these are not conditions, Ms. Jadin said that they are still conditions. Your position is intermediate. This is an address you are formulating to the government. You say that it should or should not take these elements into account.

I want to address the members of the government, the eminent member of the government who is here and who follows our work. Mrs Sleurs, how do you interpret this resolution and, in the event that the conditions contained therein are not met, will the government recognize Palestine?

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out that Ms. Linden was speaking. This is a parliamentary initiative. If the government feels called to speak, it can.

Since then, the majority has been witnessing different interpretations of the resolution. by Mr. De Roover explained for an hour that there were no conditions. Its “on basis” or “on the basis of” are conditions. Then we had the right to listen to Ms. Jadin for the MR group who said very clearly that there were conditions.

We no longer know exactly what it is. I agree with Mr. Mr. of Dallemagne. It requires consistency from the majority.

I also ask the Minister who represents the Government. Can we know the position of the government?

I give the word to those who ask for it.

Ms. Linden still has the floor.

We have asked a question to the Government. Is it possible for the government to respond?

If the government asks for the word, I will give it.

This is a resolution, which is the work of the Parliament. You are asking the government to do certain things. We will take note of this.

However, the debate begins to take surreal forms. I now understand that the government is being asked what we mean by our resolution. In my view, a resolution is a question from the House to the government, while here one gives the impression that it is the government that asks us a question.

I must tell you that there is a substantial difference between the Chamber and FC De Champions: in the Chamber there is no restriction on repetitions.

Mr. Speaker, I love the way my N-VA colleague is desperately trying to catch up with a situation that is beginning to become surreal. Dear colleagues of the majority, when you are heard one after another, when you hear your versions, this confidence that some say, “I trust this government,” and this government that now says “we will see well if we apply certain things,” recognize that it is logical...

I have confidence, optimism and hope!

We would be pleased to hear the minister, who does not listen much but who, now, is interested in it and has almost spoken. You who give them such great confidence and who affirm here that they will actually position themselves in favour of the recognition of the State of Palestine... Madame the Minister, since you are here for the government, we would be pleased that you inform us about the party in your majority that you support to know which version you support among those that, since all the time, have been expressed here at the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard Ms. Fonck begin her speech by saying that the situation is becoming surreal, etc. I think she gave it a layer. She concluded her speech by asking the Minister the party she supports. It is not the government that supports a majority. You should not laugh! We are in a majority consisting of four political formations that express themselves in a debate after having reached an agreement on the drafting and filing of a parliamentary text that is a resolution taken by parliament. The Minister is there to hear what is being said. As a parliamentary debating a text, I would not like to have to wait for the instructions of the government! (Brouhaha) by

The [...]

Mrs. Onkelinx, I know very well that you were a minister and that you used to tell the majority what it should do (...) (Brouhaha)

One after the other, please.

Everyone knows that there are four political formations in those who support this majority. These are four points of view that we express and that can actually vary from one sensitivity to another. Absolutely of course! This is no problem. The only thing that will matter is the moment of the vote, when our majority will express itself (...)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to remind you of one essential rule: it is the government that recognizes a foreign state. We are in Parliament. The least of the things, however, is to ask the government how it understands the resolution that we are going to discuss and that we may be going to adopt. The least thing is to ask him what he intends to do with this resolution. If today the government says that this does not interest it, that it does not understand the text submitted, that it is our discussion and that it laughs at the rest, then I really wonder what we are serving for! (Brouhaha) by

Indeed, you reminded me that I have been some time on the government banks and that, in this context, I have had to know several resolutions that have been discussed by Parliament within my competence. Every time I spoke about the subject to express my feelings. Here, the very fact that the Secretary of State is barely listening, that there is no word from the government, shows the government’s contempt for the question that is being raised, namely the recognition of Palestine. This is a major political fact! (Brouhaha) by

Onkelinx, indeed, what is important here is the freedom of parliament. I know you were used to the idea that the parliament would be caporalised.

and never! ( the protests

Here, this is not the case. Madame Onkelinx, I listened to you. See how you are! You don’t like to hear other voices than your own.

Of course, once the resolution has been voted, we will then be able to ask the government the question about how it will implement it. But let us leave the right to the Parliament to discuss it!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we understand that the opposition wants to go quickly and recognize Palestine quickly, but then you’ll pull the chariot for the horse. Before we have finished the debate, before we have discussed our resolution in the House and before we have voted on it, we are already asking the government what its position is. This does not seem to be a way of working at all. That even seems to me, dear opposition members, to undermine what we are doing here and what we stand for.

Ten second, over snelheid gesproken, of the government has within four months a resolution on the table gelegd, die straks goedgekeurd zal worden. Er was a resolution of 28 April 2011. Die hat four years op tafel gelegen in daar is nougatbollen with gebeurd. Who is going fast? This is meerderheid.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to attack Ms. Onkelinx by recalling the number of years she has been a minister.

That said, as a constitutionalist, all that says Mr. Delphine has a lot of weight. However – and I have already had the opportunity to discuss this issue with him – one cannot follow him when he says that the government will see to what extent it will follow or not the resolution that will be voted by our parliament. It is the Parliament that decides. It is the Parliament that votes. And if the parliament votes a resolution, the government is obliged to implement it. One point of our Rules, Mr. Speaker, also concerns the question of whether or not the government applies the resolutions.

I will not extend this discussion for a long time. But Mr. Miller is totally wrong. We are not voting a law. We do not vote a decree. We do not vote for an order. We are voting a resolution. We vote for a wish. (Brouhaha) by

Dear colleagues, please let Mr. speak. The Delphine!

I explain simply and kindly that a resolution is a wish that the House expresses or not. Therefore, to say that the government is bound by this resolution is nonsense.

I would like to note that Mr. Delphine remains in his position.

A government lives because it is supported by a majority. The majority vote a resolution in favour of recognition of the Palestinian state. The government must implement the resolution that has been voted, otherwise we are facing a majority problem.

Therefore we will vote on a resolution in which we believe. We are confident, confident and convinced that it will contribute more to the recognition of the Palestinian State than that of the opposition which, if voted, would only result in the only victory of the opposition that would rush to celebrate, happy to have obtained something.

So far, nothing has advanced. We want to give our government a strong position that allows it to be heard by both Israelis and Palestinians. That is why we believe that our resolution is the best.

It’s not about the government, it’s not about who is the best student in the class, it’s about the independence of Palestine and the recognition of Palestine as an independent state of peace, stability and hope. Our resolution expresses hope for the resumption of the peace process, in which the recognition of Palestine will be a necessary step forward.

Our resolution should contribute to bringing both Israel and Palestine to the table as full partners. Both countries must abide by international agreements and responsibilities, including with respect to their own people, in the areas of security, good governance and human rights. The boundaries must be clear and they must be respected.

The resolution also recognises the right to self-determination and refers to the UN resolutions of 1947, 1967 and 1988. For my group, those resolutions are not at issue. We also explicitly refer to the status of Palestine in international organizations. The Palestinian delegation has a special diplomatic status. The members of the Foreign Relations Committee know that, because we received the delegation here on 9 September 2014. We talked with the delegation about the conflict.

We also explicitly refer to Israel’s settlement policy, which absolutely does not contribute to a solution. We fully recognize the legitimate expectations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Furthermore, we agree with the EU that the future Palestine can become a sovereign, independent, democratic, cohesive and viable state. We must not forget that the EU is already investing a lot in this area. It is also one of our partner countries in development cooperation, as colleague Claerhout just noted.

Positive steps taken by the Palestinian government, such as the recognition of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are ⁇ recognized.

We equally recognize Israel’s right to live in peace and security and to protect the security of its citizens. This also means that we join in condemning the threats from Hamas and other militias. These threats must absolutely stop. A negotiated peace cannot be achieved without simultaneously ensuring the security of the streets and challenging the very existence of the State of Israel. Other countries in the region that threaten Israel should also understand this. The EU and Belgium should play a role in this regard.

Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that the proposal for a resolution does not choose a side. The question today is not whether Belgium will now choose the side of Palestine or of Israel. We reject this black-and-white thinking. The only side that our group chooses is that of peace and hope, the way of optimism, Mrs. Onkelinx. For this reason, my group rejects the idea that our supposedly too weak resolution will only be grain on the mill of fundamentalists on the Palestinian side to store faith in a solution. Nor do I trust the assertion that the resolution on the Israeli side would radicalize the parties in the light of the upcoming elections in March. This is not from tel. We cannot talk to fundamentalists. It is precisely for this reason that we and the European Union must indicate that only the path of negotiation, therefore also of compromise and moderation, is correct.

We, the presenters of the resolution, have therefore also chosen to make a clear request to the government to carry out the recognition of Palestine at the most appropriate time. This has a double reason. First, the recognition of states is formally the competence of the executive power. This has also been deepened earlier. Secondly, here we give the government a clear mandate to move in that negotiation process and the preparations for it. This is also mentioned by colleague Claerhout several times. Now giving a unilateral and immediately binding mandate to the government would reduce the diplomatic space of our government to zero. We take care of that.

To enable recognition, the text has identified a number of elements that we consider important. I repeat them briefly to avoid misunderstandings. The Government should assess the possible recognition in the light of a positive impact on the negotiation process, on the European consultation and on the existence of a full-fledged Palestinian government with authority across the entire territory. We have had this discussion several times tonight. The latter is, in fact, a formal condition imposed on a State before recognition can be passed. My group considers these elements all but unreasonable.

In fact, I regret that the opposition has not joined this initiative and has continued to uphold its own stance. We Belgians possess the cutting-edge technology in conflict resolution, sometimes slow and not always as elegant, but peacefully and with an eye for the legitimate interests of all communities. Our resolution is moderate and stands for the Belgian model of pacification.

It’s not the resolution of five minutes of political courage and muscle ball roles suggested by others. My group will approve the present resolution with conviction and optimism. Our parliamentary group will therefore continue to play its role.

Mrs Sleurs, we wish the government success in its efforts to reactivate the negotiation process. We will also follow these efforts closely in the committee. As Mr Miller stressed today, we ask the government, we will follow the file closely and question the government on the issue. However, this resolution clearly sets the horizon for our group and for Parliament. We fully opt for a definitive and comprehensive solution that respects the legitimate expectations of peace, security and prosperity of the Palestinian and Israeli people.

I would like to begin my presentation with a slightly broader comment. I just remained calm, but it is unheard that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was not present when we discussed the Foreign Affairs chapter of the Government Agreement here, is not present now.

We talked in the committee about seven resolutions, which means that the theme is alive in Parliament. We spent four hours in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have been discussing this issue here for a little more than two hours now and who is still not present? That is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Indeed, the colleagues of the majority will note that a resolution is a matter of Parliament, which is true. It would be respectful, however, if the Minister of Foreign Affairs were present at the discussion of such an important and sensitive topic – otherwise there would not be seven resolutions here and we would not have discussed in the committee for four hours – here. From me he was allowed to come here alone to listen. I would not have had a problem with it if he had given an explanation.

His absence is doubly regrettable, because in my opinion — I will open the discussions a little — it is a break in our policy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

There was under Louis Michel, Karel De Gucht, Yves Leterme, Steven Vanackere and under Didier Reynders in the previous government a constant in our foreign policy towards those two countries. That constant in our foreign policy was that we had two basic principles, two principles. The first principle was taken by all the parties that have ever been part of those governments of which I have just listed the foreign ministers, and there are quite a few.

The first principle was that we asked both sides to respect international law. The second principle was equidistance. We would never choose party for either of the two.

I think in the four months that this right-wing government in power is establishing a break in our policy. First, respect for international law.

A month and a half ago, the Palestinian government decided to join the International Criminal Court. This is a very important choice, which everyone in Belgium should be delighted with. This means that one of the two parties has stated that it wishes to subject its behavior and the behavior of the other party to international law, to the examination by the International Criminal Court. Have you heard any encouraging signals from the Belgian side? None of None. In fact, when Israel decided to hold back Palestinian tax revenues as a sanction, some foreign ministers in Europe have said that this went too far, that it was about it. Colleagues of the majority, and it is a pity that he is not here, I challenge the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to submit to me a communiqué in which he has expressed only one light protest.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a break. International law is no longer the starting point in the preparation of our Foreign Minister.

It is a pity that we cannot discuss this with him.

Mr. Van der Maelen, it’s been more or less 10 minutes since you’ve been at the tribune and you’ve repeated 10 times that you find unfortunate that the Foreign Minister is not there. As far as I know, everyone in the homicide is aware of the absence of our minister for now two days. It is too easy to place all the arguments of your exhibition on the fact “that it is regrettable that...” Everyone knew that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not be present today. He is apologized. That is why it is represented. It is too easy to use that argument to continue to vocifer.

In the end, there is indeed a resolution that is proposed by the majority. As always, in every legislature, there are of course counter-proposals that are made by the opposition. It is clear that we will not agree. But one thing is important: tonight there will be at least one resolution that will be voted and that goes in the interest of everyone, even if it does not correspond to everyone’s sensitivities. Every time, in every legislature, for every resolution, it is always the same thing.

Let us continue the debate in a much more placed way and try, for once, to end it. I think we say a little everything and anything.

Mr. Thiéry, I agree that we have different opinions. I think every member of Parliament is of the opinion that this is an important foreign policy issue; otherwise we would not have debated it for so long. It is a fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not find us worthy of a second — neither in the Committee on Foreign Relations nor in this plenary session — to come for a moment to listen or, even better, to participate in this debate. I am sorry, but I find this unacceptable. You have a different opinion about it and I respect it, but I tell you what my opinion is.

I find this all the more unacceptable because I think I see a break in the constant of the policies of different governments with different compositions. At a time when one of the two parties proposes to submit the conflict to the supervision of the International Criminal Court and then there comes a sanction from that other party that does not want to do so, our Minister of Foreign Affairs does not even whisper. He still does not pull on the eyebrow and does not give a sign, while in other European countries foreign ministers say this is about it; if the Palestinians choose the piste of the International Criminal Court, they can only be happy with it. In Belgium we hear no word from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, no reaction, not here — it can not be, because he is not present — nor from his department.

The first point is, therefore, that international law for this majority is no longer a guiding principle in the setting up of our country.

The second point, the second constant, the second basic characteristic of the political line that the various governments have followed in the past, is the equidistance.

Colleagues, we can argue for a long time, but I will try to keep it simple. Before the recent Gaza war, the case was blocked. Since the latest Gaza war, however, we see that eight parliaments and one government, the Swedish, want to recognize the country. Collega Delpérée is right: recognition is a matter of governments, according to most constitutions. The Swedish government has decided to recognize the country. The British Parliament, as colleague Hellings has cited, has made a call, a wish to its government, to recognize it immediately.

In short, there is a first group of countries that have responded after the Gaza conflict and are for immediate recognition. In Sweden it happened by the government, in the United Kingdom it is a wish of parliament.

There is a second set of countries’ resolutions that say they are in principle in favor of recognition, but that does not need to take place right now, which may be later. Such a resolution was approved by the European Parliament. A consensus was sought. Five parties gathered and approved a resolution with 498 votes against 88 and 111 abstentions, saying peace negotiations and recognition must go hand in hand. almost simultaneously.

Then there is the resolution of this majority. If approved, the Belgian Parliament will be the ninth to consider the recognition. With the first part of your text, I can live. If you would put a point behind “considered most suitable” in your text, you are in the group I have just described, the second group.

But no, you say that recognition will take place later and it must take place on the basis of a number of conditions. And that is our criticism: there are a number of unfulfilled conditions. In other words, these are conditions that can only be fulfilled if one party agrees, Israel.

Why am I saying that? It has been formulated somewhat differently, but it comes down to the fact that there needs to be some more unity within Europe. Colleagues, everyone who has been following the issue for ten years knows that Europe is divided over it and that there are countries – I will not name names – with a heavy historical debt to the Jews. They will never move towards a recognition of Palestine unless there is a green light from Israel.

Another condition set in the resolution, which has been cited several times, is that the Palestinian government must be able to establish authority over the entire territory. Area C on the West Bank is occupied by Israel. Civilian, political and military are governed by them. As long as Israel does not decide to withdraw there, according to your text, there will be no recognition.

The conclusion is clear. There is no equidistance here. If you chose equidistance, you were in the middle group. We are in the first group, which is for immediate recognition. I would like to accept that this first group goes too far for you. This is not very radical, my colleagues. There are calls from prominent Israeli intellectuals and politicians, Nobel Prize winners, two former ministers, a bunch of Knesset members and famous writers such as Amos Oz and David Grossman. They call on the international community to take the step towards the immediate recognition of Palestine as they need it to keep a two-state solution alive.

Let us not say that we are too radical. Colleagues of the majority, we have presented to you in the committee, with the opposition, with our colleagues of the Greens, the text of the European Parliament. It is not in the first group, but in the middle group. You rejected that text. You choose a text that is completely on the Israeli line.

The Israeli diplomacy is delighted with your text and learns with it in the rest of Europe, with the message that this is a parliament that has chosen their side and that does not go along with the movement that is taking place in the rest of Europe.

This is your text, colleagues.

Mr Van der Maelen, you have pointed out a few breaks between this policy and the previous one. You have not yet completely rounded up, so it may still come, but there is still a difference between this government and the one you were part of. We recognize the Palestinian State. Yours has not succeeded.

It is really not worth the trouble to answer it.

That difference is very clear, Mr. Van der Maelen.

Mr. De Roover, I would like to remind you that it is not the parliament that recognizes a state, it is the government. If you want to talk about parliamentary initiatives, I will remind you that in the Senate, during the previous legislature, a text was adopted calling for the recognition of Palestine. Stop lying all the time.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues of the opposition, this debate is not yet four hours but yet already a whole time and I still wait for serious arguments from you that explain to me why you as the opposition do not sign this proposal. Per ⁇ we should add another small clause in Van Dale to the definition of “condition”, ⁇ then everything becomes clear. However, it is incomprehensible, it is a shame that the opposition continues to chain this opportunity, this text on the basis of false pretexts, on the basis of conscious misinterpretations, which we hear here again and again. This is a missed opportunity for the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. De Roover, be intellectually honest. I told you later that something has changed since the last Gaza war. I had submitted a resolution to move to recognition of Palestine in the previous legislature and those before and those before, but the climate has changed. It is no coincidence that one government has already recognized Palestine and seven other parliaments have made a choice. I blame you that you, in the movement that now exists in Europe, with your resolution go for the mildest possibility of all, with the most pro-Israeli attitude in the entire European Union. I blame you for that.

Mr. Luykx, I have then tried to explain to you why we will not approve this resolution. It is clear, this is a hypocritical resolution. She is hypocritical because there is a first part stating that you are for recognition at the most appropriate time.

If you stop there, then you are on the line of the European Parliament and then I would even want to endorse the resolution. You, however, add hypocritical elements and say that the government can only proceed to recognizing it as one, two, and three.

Listen well now. One, two and three can only be realized if Israel realizes those conditions. Thus, you provide proof that you choose a side, that you also store the equidistance, the second constant in our foreign policy towards the region, in addition to the fact that you no longer take international law as the guide. Now you are on the side of Israel. I blame you for that.

I repeat: our resolution recognizes that the international community has sought a solution since 1993 with the start of the Oslo negotiations. I have already said it. I will repeat: do you know the definition of madness or stupidity? There are various variants. Einstein said that it’s crazy and stupid – don’t take it personally – to think that if you repeat something that you’ve done five or six times before, you’ll get a different outcome. That you say. You say you can live peacefully with the status quo. You think that peace talks will be resumed and that Israel will stop the settlements.

Sorry but wake up. be awake . Read and follow Israeli policy. I have just mentioned a call from people who are deadly anxious about the political path that their country is taking. There are coalitions of Netanyahu and far-right in Israel. Forget that they will be willing to restart the negotiation process. Amos Oz and David Grossman are not fools. They say it’s time to shock. Now is the time to recognize Palestine.

They hope that one will then realize that it must be done with the picking up of land.

Mr. Luykx, I would like to give a clear answer to your question why the opposition parties will not approve your majority resolution. I would also like to give a response to Mrs Claerhout of CD&V and Mrs Lijnen of Open Vld.

We will not help approve that resolution because it gives too much diplomatic freedom of movement to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The resolution sets out a number of conditions, it makes a certain reservation; in short, it actually allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs not to immediately proceed to recognize the Palestinian State.

The next question is what the Minister will do. Ms. Linnen has just called for optimism and confidence in the government. Based on the statements of Minister Reynders. He already stated in the committee on 19 November 2014 what he will do with the resolution. He then said that he would only proceed to recognize the Palestinian State at the end of the negotiation process, if Israel agrees to it.

Mrs. Lijnen, Mrs. Claerhout and Mr. De Roover, what you do is in fact giving a veto to Israel. If Israel says neth, it is neth, and you lay down in it. In other words, you are placing yourself in the impasse in the Middle East, which has been going on for 25 years now, while we with Parliament might not be so naive and could ask the government, and therefore also the rebellious minister Reynders, even demand to move immediately and unconditionally towards the recognition of the Palestinian State. You refuse it intentionally.

Mr Van der Maelen, you are talking about a breakup. I think we are making a step forward with our resolution, and I will continue to do so.

The difference between the resolution of the majority and your resolution, which I have also read, is that you sin yourself to what you accuse us of. Your resolution breathes out the condemnation and criticism of Israel.

You are not advocating the recognition of the state. You simply condemn Israel. This does not seem to me to be the path of what you call narrowly, the diplomatic space. It does not seem to me to be the way to recognize the Palestinian State or to make any positive contribution to the conflict.

Mr. Luykx, we ask for the immediate recognition of Palestine, because we believe that it is beneficial for various reasons.

First, we think it is necessary to give a strong signal to Israel.

That analysis is shared by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, by several ministers in previous governments, Ran Cohen, Yossi Sarid, by several former members of the Knesset, Avnery, Yael Dayan, Mossi Raz, Naomi Chazan, by Amos Oz and David Grossman. Those persons of Jewish origin, Israeli citizens, implore to take such a position, because their government is working to create an insoluble problem. They are calling for quick action, otherwise there will be no two-state solution.

For those who don’t believe it, do you know that it’s in Netanyahu’s plans to change the Israeli constitution and turn Israel from a secular state into a Jewish state? You have all read that, right? Do you believe that that government, that likely new majority, will want to work on a two-state solution? “Please, Einstein would really call that super stupidity.

I go around. I immediately notify Mr Miller, for he has caused a tremendous outburst of anger in the committee after a comment from me. I will repeat it, because I believe it.

Why does the majority turn away? Collega Vanvelthoven just rightly stated that the majority is very soft in the struggle against the fraud of the powerful, the strong and the wealthy, while it is very tough in the struggle against the social fraud, against the weaker. Well, the curve we see here is the translation of the domestic choices of the majority into foreign policy: it is very soft toward Israel, but pushes very hard toward the weakest party in the conflict, Palestine. If you have any other explanation for why you are taking the curve, I would love to hear it. I conclude that there is a constant – this may extend you to honor – and that there is coherence in your policies, domestically and abroad: the weak are caught and the strong are respected.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, especially dear colleagues of the majority, the title of the resolution that we are going to vote just now is very different from the content it contains. It says something completely different from what the other parliaments of this continent have voted for, namely the unconditional recognition of Palestine.

To recognize Palestine immediately and unconditionally was the content of our own resolution, which we had deposited on these banks in November. We had taken for example the British model that was straight to the point and that simply said, “We recognize Palestine now.”

Your recognition, she, is conditioned by the very hypothetical existence of a moment deemed most appropriate, the famous three conditions that were repeated at the envi. I will not come back.

Dear colleagues of the majority, you are playing with the Palestinian feet and you are dragging the feet! Now, in this conflict – this has been said many times – we have lost a lot of time. This slowness – I am surprised that this has not yet been highlighted in this debate – contrasts with the extraordinary speed with which this parliament and then the government recognized Kosovo in 2008, while at the time no condition was issued by parliament and a fortiori by the government to recognize this state, while the international political and legal context of the time was at least extremely delicate.

In fact, the famous UN resolution 1244 provided for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which had later become Serbia. This did not prevent the Belgian government from recognizing Kosovo’s independence.

Take your courage in both hands. In the case of Palestine, there are more than 70 resolutions concerning the immediate and unconditional recognition of Palestine since 1948 and they all go in the same direction: giving a state to the Palestinians.

International law is with the Palestinians and with all Democrats. You have to be deaf to not realize that a movement has been born in Europe a few months ago. In Belgium, and this has not yet been said, the parliaments of federal entities have voted one after another for resolutions that plead the government to be able to recognize Palestine, which is its exclusive competence.

The European Parliament also calls on its Member States to recognize Palestine unconditionally, contrary to what you say, Mr. De Roover. All European representatives of the democratic parties represented in this House voted this resolution, Mr De Roover.

By voting this federal resolution, the House goes against the sense of history. Why Why ? Because the fact of recognizing Palestine now means putting the Palestinians on an equal footing with the Israelis, who have had a state since 1948. The fact of recognizing Palestine immediately is de facto denouncing the Israeli colonization of the occupied territories, which prevents the continuation of the peace process and obviously makes the existence of a Palestinian state impossible. To truly recognize Palestine is, and it has not yet been said, to cut the grass under the feet of those criminals who, in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, recruit candidates for jihad in Iraq and Syria. The injustice that Palestinians have experienced for decades is obviously not the only fuel for these fascists and terrorists. On the other hand, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the domination of Palestinians on their territory are systematically mobilized as arguments by these Daesh fascists. Take your courage in both hands. Muscle these fascists by showing that Europe, starting with Belgium, is on the side of the Palestinians!

The debate has been too long. In conclusion, as environmentalists, we regret this missed opportunity. The future of the Palestinians depends on the dignity that other states, starting with European states, can offer them. Today, but you can still change your mind, Belgium has not had the courage to give them that dignity, and we regret it! That is why we will vote against this false recognition resolution!

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, without wanting to discriminate, like other colleagues, I would have liked that the Minister of Foreign Affairs honoured us with his presence to discuss such an important topic. As was the case before, he is not present now either.

Still, a long debate on the various proposals of resolutions and the amendments that have been submitted has already taken place in the committee as in this chamber.

Everyone’s position is now well known. The outcome of the plenary session is unquestionable. As was the case two weeks ago, therefore, it will be a majority vote against opposition. As recalled by mr. Van Der Maelen, as of now, the draft resolution written by the government will, unfortunately, be adopted by our assembly.

In doing so, the House of Representatives will become one of the least ambitious European parliaments on this matter. Unlike what has been voted in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Sweden, the European Parliament, to name only the most recent examples, the majority resolution proposal is so unclear, so fuzzy, so subject to a succession of conditions – experience and debates have shown how impossible these conditions are to be met within a reasonable time – so less demanding for our government that it becomes completely inoperant. A real empty shell, that is what your resolution proposal is. It is just the wind, nothing but the wind. We doubted this since the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, on 19 November last, in a commission, that the position of Belgium was known and that it would not change.

As I said, we are facing an empty shell. This resolution does not contain anything, nothing that we did not already know. It reflects nothing but the position expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 19 November 2014. Nevertheless, it has been the subject of a full page and even one of some of the major newspapers that have been caught up by government communication.

Obviously, this government and the majority in place have decided to stay on the side. They let the undeniable momentum pass, returning to the policies carried out in recent months in Europe.

By sending back a possible recognition of Palestine by Belgium at the time that will be deemed the most appropriate, it is your resolution, and by submitting that same moment to a series of conditions – it is clear, Mr. De Roover – of which it is well known that they will not be met soon, we are here truly witnessing a reference to the Greek calendas of this file. Some parliamentarians have made the press believe that the position of Belgium will change, but there will be nothing.

In short, this is again a missed opportunity for Belgium to make its point of view heard, to mobilize its diplomacy and to show a little more boldness and ambition at the international level. Indeed, beyond an immediate recognition by Belgium, there is nothing even provided in the text of the majority – and it is nevertheless an extraordinary surprise – in terms of proactive action on the part of our country in order to advance the idea of this recognition of Palestine at the European level and, then, to reach a common European position in favor of it. There is nothing. There is no diplomatic action in this area.

It is not even said that the government will take its pilgrimage stick to go to see other European states to try to have a common position a little more bold. No, as usual though. I imagine that we will simply follow others when any decision will eventually be taken at another level. Thus, through our lack of ambition and voluntarism, we become on the international stage a less and less significant actor in these yet important international affairs.

Either it is the choice of the majority, we regret it, both for the image and the role of our country and for the evolution of the situation on the ground and the search for a negotiated solution to the conflict. Nevertheless, this choice is not ours and we want it to be very clear. That is why we decided to put the overall amendment we had proposed in a committee by the voice of my colleague, Ms. Vanessa Matz, who presented our proposals during these debates on 20 January last. This amendment is to be constructive, balanced, clear and comprehensive. He was supported by other opposition parties. Furthermore, it is largely based on the texts already approved within several regional and community assemblies of our country, which also ask the federal government to officially recognize Palestine.

However, the demands of these federal entities were also not heard.

We believe that the immediate recognition of Palestine would allow, however, to change the situation in the conflict, to increase the pressure for a negotiated political solution, and above all, to favor, finally, a change of method, as necessary in view of the irreparable blocking of negotiations for years and years.

The logic that has prevailed so far was to consider the full and complete recognition of Palestine as the outcome of the peace process, as the final act that would seal the agreements on all other subjects: the issue of borders, the issue of security, the question of populations. This logic has failed. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become the oldest conflict in the world. It has caused thousands of deaths and terror on both sides. The peace process is completely disrupted. Israeli voices themselves have come to tell us that all this no longer makes sense.

The recognition of Palestine should not depend on Israel as the recognition of Israel fortunately did not depend on the Arab countries.

Who can imagine that by occupying Palestine, by continuing its colonization, peace will be obtained from the Palestinians? Who can imagine it?

In the face of this complete blocking of the situation and the ever-increasing cycle of violence, in the face of the collapse of the peace process initiated in Oslo in 1993, it seems indisputable to us that we need to change method. It can only be noted that the attempts to negotiate between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in their current form, have not achieved any notable progress. What is to be feared is that this window of opportunity that was opened so long ago, twenty-two years ago, will close forever and that the possibility of creating two States side by side will soon be dead letter and definitively impossible.

The legitimate demands of Palestine for its recognition as a true full-fledged state, capable of negotiating equally with Israel, must now be heard.

It is now that the State of Palestine, alongside the State of Israel, must be recognized as independent, democratic, sovereign, one-sided, viable, living side by side in peace and security, recognizing each other with mutually recognized and respected borders. I would like to remind you that these are all concepts drawn from the different conclusions of the European Council.

In this context, it also seems to us primary not to lose ourselves in the multiple complex aspects of the conflict or to take part unilaterally. We must know how to admit this complexity of the situation, condemn violence on both sides, recognize the demands and legitimate rights of each, including Israel’s right to defend itself and assume its security, while condemning in this context Israel’s repressive policy of collective punishment against Palestinians. This is what our amendment does as part of a balanced approach and these are elements that are, in our view, essential and indispensable.

All these elements of complexity (security, territory, borders, populations, access to water) are elements that will be much better addressed by countries that discuss equality with the help and political and legal instruments of the international community.

Our proposed amendment also recalls that this request for recognition follows the admission, on 29 November 2012, of the Palestinian Authority as a state – already state – observer non-member of the UN and is therefore part of a process ongoing for several months that has seen European parliaments and governments request this official recognition or formally decide it. Palestine is, therefore, already a state – it must be recalled – and is already recognized as such. Recognizing it as a member state of the United Nations is ultimately only the final step that allows us to go back on other bases to better ⁇ peace and security for everyone. In this context, our amendment also wishes that Belgium, along with its immediate recognition of the State of Palestine, continues to act with its European partners in order to reach a common position. It is important that Europe also advances and be more bold in this regard, in favor of the official recognition of the State of Palestine.

Finally, it should be noted that the resolution proposal submitted by the deputies of the majority does not fall within any of the above points and that the CDH considers, however, essential. Hence our decision to re-submit our amendment to the plenary session and not vote in favour of the text of the majority which is – I repeat it – dust in the eye.

As a conclusion, I will quote Elie Barnavi, former Israeli ambassador to France, great humanist, eminent historian, who himself called for the immediate recognition of the State of Palestine: “The natural right of peoples to self-determination does not depend on the good will of their opponents. If the Jews had waited for the agreement of the Arabs to create their state, they would still wait.”

What needs to be negotiated is the borders of the Palestinian state, not its right to exist. This is the true meaning of the amendment we are presenting today. This is not exactly what the majority does with their text.

The advantage of speaking at the end of a debate is that almost all the arguments have already been heard. I must say I have had a great fun here tonight. On the one hand, there is a Flemish national party that invokes the right of self-determination of peoples and today that subordinates the right of self-determination to the veto of another people. I assume, it is so. I hope that the N-VA will never do that with Flanders and the Flanders and that we will not subordinate our rightful struggle for independence to what the Whales find of it, because then it will never come out.

On the other hand, I have had a lot of fun, because largely the left and extreme left parties are today the great advocates of the independence of a people and the establishment of a Palestinian state. We know that sacred outrage from the left when it comes to peoples far away: the independence of the Uighurs, of the Kyrgyz in Asia, ⁇ also of the Papeete in French Polynesia. Even the Eskimos in Greenland may be able to count on the sympathy of socialists, greens and relatives, but o woe when it comes to the rightful aspirations not of peoples thousands of kilometers away, but of peoples who live here, the place where we gather today: Flames and Whales. Maybe we could have that debate, and I hope that then the left, the PS, sp.a, Mr. Van der Maelen en co, Mrs. Onkelinx, the representatives of Green and Ecolo, equally enthusiastic, equally fanatical, equally enthusiastic that will advocate the right of self-determination, not for peoples somewhere in the Middle East or in Asia or in South America, but here with us. That logic may be a little too much sought, so we should not talk about it today, but I have had a good time.

With the Flemish Interest, we will abstain from the vote on this resolution. If the opinion is that the Palestinians indeed have the right to a state of their own, then one should dare to say so without hesitation, Mr. De Roover. This does not have to be subject to all the conditions you list.

The question is whether the Palestinians should have a state of their own, and if so, under what conditions they are entitled to a state of their own. Or – this question has not yet been asked – is the entire Palestinian question ultimately merely an attempt by Islam to plunge Israel, throw a knife in the back and, if possible, discredit the rest of the world, and, if possible, make it disappear from the ground? Per ⁇ that last sentence hasn’t even been so blunt yet.

We do not abstain from voting because we think that the Middle East issue does not matter to us. That question is of interest to us, even if it were only because Islamic jihad is so rooted in Europe that Jews are currently massively leaving Europe and moving to Israel, hoping to be safer there than here. No matter how we turn it or turn it, in the city where I live, in Antwerp, we have a lot of experience with those things: not the pro-Palestinian protests need heavy police security, but, unfortunately, the gatherings of Jews. It’s not the mosques, the Koran schools, and the Arab communities that are guarded by the army and the police, but the synagogues, Jewish schools and other Jewish institutions. In other words, today, more than ever, it is demonstrated why the Jewish people need a secure, defensible, independent state. In 2015, when I hear in the streets of European capitals shouting, “Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas,” I’m ⁇ not naive when it comes to the discussion. Islamic hatred of Jews is not provoked by Israel, as some claim, but Israel hatred comes from Islamic hatred of Jews.

It is paradoxical that European Jews, fleeing jihad, are now moving in large numbers to Israel, a state that has been threatened for almost a hundred years in its existence by the same Islamic jihad and of which, no matter how we turn it or turn it, the Palestinians to their own shame and shame have become the demographic focal point.

During the discussion of the present resolution, a number of comments are important. I would also like to talk about the miserable fate of many hundreds of thousands and even millions of Palestinians living in the neighboring countries of Israel, such as Lebanon or Jordan. To their fate does not crawl a cock.

Are the Palestinians in Lebanon and Jordan less valuable than the Palestinians in Gaza or on the so-called West Bank? Indeed, it seems too strongly that the fate of the Palestinians is only important when there are Jews involved. When the Palestinians are treated by their Arab and Islamic brothers, who would rather lose the Palestinians rather than be wealthy, it is usually silent. This does not fit in the context of the story you want to tell.

The Palestinian question must primarily serve to discredit Israel. The right of Palestinians to self-determination deserves better. However, no matter how we turn it or turn it, that right of self-determination is now being abused to undermine Israel in the first instance.

The Western obsession with everything Israel does or leaves, has everything to do with the Islamization and Arabization of our society. As a result, Israel is not only referred to as the source of increasing misery. Israel is also subject to other much higher standards and criteria than almost any other country in the world. If Israel were not a Jewish-democratic state and no rule of law, where ultimately democracy is applied as one of the only countries in the entire region, there would be no cock to the Palestinians.

When France wanted to recognize the Palestinian State a few months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rightly stated the following, and I quote: “Does there really be nothing better to do in Europe, at the moment that throughout the Middle East the radical Islam is beheaded, murdered and robbed?”

I really wonder, colleagues, where the outrage remains over the occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco. Where is the movement of the left and others about the occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey? Where is the outrage over the fate of the Kurds, over the fate of the Druzes and over the fate of so many Christian minorities in the Middle East, who are persecuted by Islam, and not only by radical Islam, Mr. Van der Maelen? East Indians are still deaf in the left. There are no ears to it, because it does not fit into the multicultural picture. That is the reality that you are passing over every time.

Why is more than 40% of all UN resolutions concerned with the democratic rule of law of Israel and not with the terrible human rights violators such as Sudan, Nigeria or North Korea? Why this double standard?

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, allow me to put a historical point. This is necessary when we are talking about the recognition of the Palestinian state.

First and foremost, for the purity of the debate and the semantic hygiene, this resolution is not about the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict, as I read in the resolution. The Arab-Israeli conflict should be referred to as an Islamic-Jewish conflict. That is the reality. It’s not about Palestine, because Palestine is much larger than the piece of land within Israel, or about the whole of Israel as some would like. This is a larger territory, extending far into Jordan and even into Egypt, but of course no one attracts anything from it.

The truth is, no matter how we turn it or turn it, that the oema, the global Islamic community, not a non-Islamic state, dare to respect and tolerate what it calls dar al-Islam, the house of Islam. Territory that does not fall under Islamic rule is called dar al-harb, which means the house of war. That dar al-harb is according to Islam fought through the conduct of the jihad until the Sharia law applies. This is the fate of Israel.

Israel is the dar al-harb, the land of the unbelievers, of the kafirs, and therefore must disappear. Therefore, the Palestinian question is used and abused to eventually make the dar al-harb, Israel, the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam. This is the essence, not of the Arab-Israeli conflict but of the Jewish-Islamic conflict. The often-heard Islamic motto that after Jerusalem falls Rome is aligned with the Arab proverb that after Saturday comes Sunday, which means as much as: after the Jews the Christians go, Palestinian State or not.

So we are essentially talking here about a clash of civilizations, as Huntington described it, or a clash between freedom and civilization on the one hand and jihad and Islamic barbarism on the other.

Whatever they are, for me Israel is the fortress of the free West, not free from mistakes, let that be said clearly, but nevertheless a lightpoint of freedom and democracy in a desert of Islamic totalitarian thought. Everyone who knows Israel a little and has been there can and will have to bear it.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, apart from all debates about the history of the conflict and the disputes over eventually petitioned pieces of territory and apart from all detailed military-technical analyses and partial pro-Palestinian reports of the United Nations and related parties, one should only look at the true, deeper intentions of both parties to the conflict, which can easily be summarized by the following statement.

When the Islamic world lay down its weapons today and let go of its anti-Semitic hatred, there will be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. If Israel lay down its weapons today, it will be simply wiped off the map tomorrow. Golda Meir, the fourth prime minister of Israel, summarized this well: “Peace will come when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate us.”

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, no matter how we turn it or turn it, we cannot ignore the fact that for a century the Islamic world has been fighting the Jewish right to a peaceful existence in a viable state in what for them is a historical country, which is Israel. Since 1937, the so-called two-state solution, which, by the way, supports the Flemish Interest, is repeatedly rejected by the Arabs. The real reason and also uncomfortable truth is that they will never tolerate a Jewish state on what they consider to be exclusively Islamic territory. Why do you think otherwise that in schools and squares, both in Gaza and on the West Bank and elsewhere in Palestine, it is sung: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is the hardly repaired call to push the Jews in Israel into the sea. Both in Gaza and on the West Bank, jihadists who murder innocent Jews are glorified. Both in Gaza and on the West Bank, anti-Semitism is being practiced from Islamic sources that Hitler would be so jealous of. The anti-Semitic charter of Hamas states that Israel must be destroyed. And Abbas continues to repeat that he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In this context, Israel is considered to recognize Palestine and to surrender very important parts of its territory to the Palestinian State. Israel is not naive, and I do not want to be. Those who do not realize that Hamas, Fatah and the PLO only differ in strategy and tactics and not in purpose, have understood little of it. Then we have not even talked about the Shiite threat from the Iran-Hezbollah axis or about the Islamic State, which, by the way, is increasingly settling in the famous Palestinian territories.

That we believe from our Western, rational logic that something can and will change this through international law principles and all sorts of UN resolutions is ridiculously naive, but, ⁇ more importantly, it is also dangerous.

Finally, I ask you why no Palestinian State was established, Mr. Van der Maelen, between 1948 and 1967? What happened between 1948 and 1967? During this period of several decades, not Israel but Egypt and Jordan occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Why did the Arab, Islamic brothers from Jordan and Egypt, who are now so strongly for the Palestinian State, when they had the opportunity for decades to give their state to the Palestinians they so cherish, not do that? This is a question that I have been asking myself for years and that apparently no one can come up with an answer.

Do we not give the Palestinians their own state? Of course yes. Do Palestinians have the right to a state? As a nationalist, my answer is yes. However, that own state may just as well be located in Jordan or elsewhere. Should that necessarily be in the heartland of Israel, a tiny country that has already suffered so hard? That is only the question.

When we talk about the two-state solution, the ham question is not whether the Palestinians have a right to a state. The question is whether the Palestinians, the Arab world and the Muslims want an Israeli state.

Will they ever tolerate a Jewish state, a country like Israel? We should not be so naive to fail to realize that for many, and especially for Islam, behind the agenda of a Palestinian State, there is another agenda, namely to harm Israel and if somehow it can put the knife in the back, destroy and wipe off the map.

This means that my party will not approve this resolution, but will abstain. After all, the Flemish Interest is in favour of a Palestinian State, but not at the expense of Israel and not as long as the PLO, Hamas, Fatah and co want to destroy Israel and ultimately only abuse the aspiration of the Palestinian people for an independent state to hit Israel and put their radical-lamitic agenda into practice.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, two peoples are suffering from a conflict that has lasted too long and for which the international community and, in particular, the European Union have not fully assumed their responsibilities to initiate a peace process with the will to force the parties in the presence to associate with it and to seek an outcome by concluding a peace agreement.

I do not take the word by having only one thought for one of the parties. I speak with the awareness that the insecurity that constantly threatens the State of Israel is just as worrying as the conditions that the State of Israel unacceptably imposes on the Palestinian people. We must be clear: Hamas’ terrorist acts are as condemned as Israeli occupation settlements in the West Bank or Gaza. Today it is no longer in Gaza, but it was for a while.

Therefore, every time, the only criterion for assessing the situation must be the full application of international law. All United Nations resolutions are constant and remind us what international law condemns both in the attitude of one or the other parties to the conflict.

But today, there is a worrying evolution. When I recall the words of the European Council in 1999, 16 years ago, at a meeting in Berlin, they reaffirmed “the continuous and unreserved right of the Palestinians to self-determination with the option of a state” and in 1999, the European Council added that “the European Council welcomed the rapid realization of this right, which cannot be subject to any veto”.

“Fast progress for the Palestinian state to be recognized without any veto.”

I have long been one of those who thought that if there was no Palestinian willingness to lead to a peace process, the recognition of the Palestinian state should be held suspended. It happens that today it is Israel that makes it impossible to seek a peace process with the Palestinians. The continuous development of settlements in disregard for international law causes Israel to gradually resolve itself to the conviction that the Palestinian state should never exist. This belief is prevailing because within a right that, since 1977, has held the high drag in the Israeli political world, the most fanatical religious current overcomes it with a messianic vision of the extension of the State of Israel. It is a religious fanaticism that is leading the State of Israel to the impasse regarding the coexistence of the two states on a peaceful basis and in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

This choice, which has never been decidedly challenged by the international community and which ultimately leads to a dangerous confrontation between religious fanatics who have a retrograde conception of the historical role of the Jewish state, and those who, in front, will never recognize the state that is Hamas, this confrontation can have repercussions not only in the region but also beyond. When I heard Ms. Jadin tell us here that Hamas must first commit to recognizing the State of Israel before even the recognition of the Palestinian State can be considered, I wondered what she wanted. For those who come to say this, either they agree to negotiate with Hamas – which will never be my position, neither will that of all those who are convinced that there is no room for negotiation with Hamas – or they simply want to make sure that the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends only on the sole will of Hamas. They hold the entire Palestinian people of Hamas hostage, who are far from demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state.

To believe for a moment that Hamas has as its first concern the recognition of a Palestinian state is obviously a serious mistake of analysis. It is giving Hamas a dominant position, which will be totally deadly, against the democratic forces or those and those who still have the will within the Palestinian people to make a choice other than joining Hamas. Therefore, I cannot understand the syllogism that says: “No recognition of the Palestinian State until Hamas has recognized the Israeli State.” This is just a game of fanatics on both sides. This is a choice that we cannot accept.

So then yes! Because the State of Israel is today in this relationship of strength with the Palestinians stronger than the PLO, the international community has been waiting, for so many years, for the State of Israel to take the first steps, beginning by freezing all the settlements, no longer accepting new ones, to return at least on some totally unacceptable settlements, far beyond what was considered at a time as the security icing of the State of Israel, to return at least to that, in the first circle and, again, this is controversial in international law. As long as the State of Israel does not have this will, it is that it does not have the will to really engage in a peace negotiation process and that is ultimately handing over the region to the overbidding of the most fanatical, especially those of Hamas.

That’s why, in the international community and especially in Europe, several voices believe that to re-balance the negotiations, we must give those on the Palestinian side who can contribute to the pursuit of peace – they are no longer very many, we must not be mistaken but there are still fortunately some political forces – the decisive argument to be able to tell the Palestinian people that they are reaping results. Nothing is worse than closing the door to all hope for the Palestinian people to have a chance to found their state. We can no longer wait ten, fifteen, twenty years for a response to this expectation of the Palestinian people.

I heard the majority say that the right moment had to be found. This has been said in the international community for 20 years. I’ve heard the majority say, “be assured, our goals are not recognition conditions.”

I have submitted an amendment that could be the subject of consensus, if the sincerity of Mr. From Roover and others is real. The amendment reiterates the words held by the members of the majority: " ... calls on the federal government to recognize the Palestinian State as a state and subject of international law, in accordance with international law." Who could be opposed to this goal? Furthermore, I invite you to pay attention to the following objectives: " ... without considering that these objectives are conditions to which recognition is subordinated." This is exactly what Mr. De Roover told us, Mr. Luykx. Read it ! What is not obvious in reading your text becomes explicit after hearing you: everything becomes clear!

I can agree with this text. I am quite ready to say that the goal must be the positive impact of this recognition, which aims to revive or support an inclusive political process of the negotiations between Israel and Palestine, the evolution of the consultation between the Member States of the European Union, the existence of a full-time Palestinian government. These are undoubtedly goals that must be pursued and to which the government can associate.

You have said that these are not conditions. In this case, make the resolution proposal you submit to Parliament clear and unambiguous. In doing so, your proposal will be the subject of broad consensus, or even unanimity. I think that would be a major advance. If you do not, stop telling us that you are not setting conditions, while that is the case, disregarding the real pursuit of peace in this region.

My speech will be brief because many things have already been said. I will nevertheless report to you two findings I made on the occasion of a mission conducted in Palestine at the end of last year.

The first is that all our local interlocutors have repeatedly told us that recognition of the Palestinian state is very important, even though that is not the only thing to do.

The second finding highlights what has been happening in the Middle East for more than twenty years, namely that since the Oslo Process, the number of settlers has doubled. This clearly means that Israel’s policy is to torpedo peace negotiations and apply the policy of the accomplished fact. When you visit Palestine, you find that day after day, Israel continues to advance illegally into the Palestinian territories, it inexorably occupies space.

The resolution put forward by the majority supports and strengthens this process, since it is fully in line with this logic. In its resolution, the majority advances three conditions. If this term doesn’t suit you, you can use another one, but I don’t see any more appropriate term. What are these three conditions?

First, you say that the Palestinian state will be recognized when negotiations are resumed. Now, as I have just said, Israel does not want it at all and continues inexorably to colonize.

Secondly, you impose waiting for the case to advance at the level of the European Union, while Belgium should do the opposite, namely recognize the Palestinian State for this case to advance at the level of the European Union. We need to take things from the other end of the carpet.

The third condition, for the majority, is that the Palestinian government must have full authority over its entire territory, while it is obvious that this is impossible as long as Israel ⁇ ins the policy it currently pursues. It is Israel that prevents the fulfillment of the conditions you set for the recognition of the Palestinian state.

“We ask the government not to recognize the Palestinian State, unless, by the greatest of miracles, Israel fundamentally modifies its policy to make this recognition possible.” If you formulate your proposal in this sense, you would be much closer to the real spirit of your resolution.

I will conclude by reminding facts. Israel continues to violate international law as it has been doing for decades. Israel is committing war crimes. Israel killed more than 2,000 people in Gaza last year, mostly civilians, 2,000 people, a quarter of whom are children, 500 children were killed.

Currently in Gaza, because of the destruction of houses, because of the blockade resulting in the suppression of the supply of electricity and heating, because of the policy of Israel, children die of cold. I believe that such considerations should also be taken into account when adopting a resolution like this.

Many things have been said. I will be brief. The Prime Minister, as well as Vals or other European leaders, he strongly recalled that Europe without the Jews would not be Europe, Belgium without the Jews would no longer be Belgium. And yet, faced with the rise of anti-Semitism, many Jews are leaving Europe, especially to Israel, the only state where they can find refuge as such.

Dear colleagues, as Europe is facing barbarism, we are witnessing the deposit of a flood of resolutions that ignore reality and aim to stigmatize Israel, the only refuge of the Jews, to whom we struggle to assume a future here and this, in the urgency, all ceasing affairs, as if we had lessons to give.

I’m in favor of people’s self-determination, but I believe that peace must first be established between the Palestinian Authority and Israel and weapons should be silenced.

All neighboring states are bankrupt and plagued by civil war. Hamas is, as I know, still a terrorist organization and even the PLO representatives continue to demand the destruction of Israel. Giving Palestine the status of a state in the current state of affairs would be an absolute mistake that the People’s Party cannot accept. I will vote against the proposal that is made to us by the majority, just as I would have voted against the proposals of the opposition. I thank you.

You are the last registered speaker.

Unless, of course, members of Parliament feel called to say something.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, for all clarity, we have been discussing the possible recognition of Palestine here for several hours. That recognition is not a miracle solution anyway, we must be honest about it. We are discussing a resolution here and a resolution is a question from Parliament to the government to do something. The more concise, concrete and precise that question, the greater the chance that the government will give a positive answer to it and will also implement it.

Now we have two choices. We have, on the one hand, the choice, which I call the N-VA choice, because the N-VA has been the great pioneer of the majority resolution. The N-VA choice consists of subjecting the recognition of the Palestinian State to a number of conditions. If we look carefully at these conditions, then the government actually has nothing to do. It does not necessarily require the recognition of a Palestinian state. It is a weak offering and the emperor has no clothes on. If we approve the resolution of the N-VA, then nothing will happen. Why Why ? I just said it. We ask the question to the government, but Didier Reynders has already made clear what he thinks of the recognition of the Palestinian State. For our Minister of Foreign Affairs, this recognition can only follow at the end of a negotiated process, i.e. after the agreement of Israel. In other words, we put ourselves as Parliament in front of the bloc, unless we unambiguously and unconditionally ask the government for the recognition of the Palestinian State. This is not the case with the N-VA resolution. The result will be null.

The second choice we have is to approve the resolution of what I call the prudent opposition, the progressive opposition. It calls for a positive step forward, the unconditional recognition of the Palestinian State as soon as possible. We believe that this is necessary to give oxygen to the debate, to take a positive step forward, to place Palestine on an equal footing with Israel, and to send Israel a ⁇ strong signal when it comes to respect for international law. What is the context? The context is one of 25 years of impasse in the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

Israelis and Palestinians are the target of violence. The number of Israeli settlements on the West Bank has tripled. Through the separation wall that was laid, Israel annexed up to 10% of the West Bank, 10% of what is recognized as legitimate Palestinian territory by international law.

So far, we have taken a cautious approach from Israel. Let’s see what this cautious approach has resulted in. It has led nowhere. This creates increasing frustration in many European countries and even in the White House. The situation in the Middle East is increasingly affecting our security interests. Worldwide, Muslim extremists are gaining support, including by referring to the Palestinian disaster. Terrorism is no longer limited to homeless areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has reached our capitals. There is a growing awareness that we must resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, also for the sake of our own security.

Why is recognition of Palestine important? I’ve already said that it’s not a miracle solution, but it’s important, because we think that recognizing Palestine can be a lever to pull negotiations out of dust. If you do not think so, colleagues, I would like you to provide an alternative. This is a proposal that is supported by arguments. You deny that. What is the alternative to pulling the negotiations out of the mud? When the current Israeli diplomacy fails over and over and the occupation gets deeper and deeper, other recipes are needed.

Madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. More and more countries are realizing that the recognition of Palestine sends a symbolic, yet clearly political signal that a resignation of the legitimate borders of 1967 is unacceptable and that Israel needs to invest more in peace. It seems to create a level playing field between Israel and Palestine, and thus the recognition breaks the status quo, which slowly drives every observer to despair.

Colleagues, it is nothing more than the ratification of the internationally recognized borders of 1967.

What have other countries done? Are we the only ones who would unconditionally move towards the recognition of Palestine? On October 30, 2014, Sweden recognized the Palestinian State. 134 other countries have already gone ahead of the EU member state. More important, however, is that Sweden’s unilateral decision sparked a fierce debate.

Since then, numerous parliaments have passed resolutions that have strongly called for the recognition of Palestine. I will mention a few of them: Britain, Luxembourg, France, Ireland and also the European Parliament.

Belgium is behind. The majority parties, the MR, the N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld, stubbornly adhere to the soft approach of Israel: let us definitely keep Israel as a friend country and let us not shoot Israel too loudly in the head.

I would like to draw a parallel with the recognition of Kosovo in 2008. How did that recognition happen then? It happened through a very short royal decision and barely a debate here in Parliament. The government then moved very quickly to recognize Kosovo in 2008. There was no mention of the conditions that the Belgian government now imposes on the recognition of Palestine. There are two sizes and two weights.

First, in the Palestinian resolution, the majority parties talk about the necessary positive impact of recognition so that peace negotiations can be restarted quickly. What kind of peace negotiations are there? Prime Minister Netanyahu refuses to stop the construction of illegal settlements. Last week there was another press release, showing that the illegal construction is continuing: 550 new houses in illegal Israeli settlements.

In 2008, the reaction of Russia and Serbia to the possible recognition of Kosovo was equally furious. Nevertheless, then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht defended the recognition – I quote – by pointing out that “no progress was made in the negotiations with the Serbs and Russia on a solution and thus imposed a different scenario.”

The situation is the same as the situation today. Nevertheless, the absence of a negotiated solution is being invoked today as an argument to not go too fast with the recognition of Palestine.

Secondly, for the government parties, consensus between the European Member States is also important before recognizing the Palestinian State. As colleague Van der Maelen has already said, that consensus is of course lacking. You need to know it as well as we do. A country like Germany will never confront Israel, for emotional-historical reasons, but not for rational reasons. We may regret this, but it is a fact. However, the condition of European consensus did not apply to the recognition of Kosovo, as until today countries such as Spain, Cyprus and Greece have still not recognized Kosovo.

Third, it calls for a full-fledged Palestinian government that exercises authority over the entire Palestinian territory. That is an impossible condition, because nota bene Israel itself colonizes Palestine and has not only annexed much of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, but also de facto controls it. In 2008, Kosovo’s legal and political status was equally precarious. Kosovo, for example, did not have an army to guard its territory. However, all these questions did not appear to be an objection to our country at the time, but now they are.

Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Wallström, recently said the following about Sweden’s recognition of Palestine: “Some say that our decision to recognize a Palestinian State is premature. But I am especially afraid that it is already too late.”

It is a bit of a pity that colleagues Peter De Roover and Peter Luyckx are no longer present. We would like to formulate a call. Ms. Smeyers and Ms. Demir, ⁇ you can forward that call to your colleagues, as the N-VA foreign policy vocabulary is currently strangely gone. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is already missing, and the great pioneer of this resolution, which will lead nowhere, is also missing. You are here without Foreign Affairs spokesmen. However, I would like to formulate my call.

I would like to refer to a press release from the predecessor of the N-VA, the People’s Union, on 7 December 2000. The current Flemish prime minister, Geert Bourgeois, was then chairman of the People's Union. I will read what he said then. Following the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians, the current prime minister then demanded the following: the withdrawal of the Belgian ambassador from Israel, the suspension of the cooperation agreement between our country and Israel, the suspension of the discussion of the European Association Agreement and the recognition of a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital.

What happened to the People’s Union? What happened to the power of indignation you still had then? I observe that the N-VA now comfortably rolls in the plush of power and is now a pioneer of a resolution that does not overwhelm the status quo, and that actually makes the impasse in the Middle East continue.

We hope that you will repent after this debate that is coming to an end. If you move, there is an alternate majority, colleagues, to move on to the unconditional and immediate recognition of the Palestinian State.

A vote against the immediate and unconditional recognition of the Palestinian State is a vote for Israel’s illegal settlement policy, for the growing frustration of many Palestinian youths, for the insecurity in the Middle East. Think carefully when you press the voting button.