Proposition 54K1973

Proposition de résolution sur l'appui de la Belgique à une relance du processus de paix au Proche-Orient.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sarah Claerhout, Peter Luykx, Els Van Hoof
MR Jean-Jacques Flahaux
Open Vld Nele Lijnen, Tim Vandenput

Submission date

July 13, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Israel Middle East Palestine question Palestine resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PS | SP VB

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 ¶

Nov. 23, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs. Grovonius, by Mr. Luykx, mevrouw Bellens in mevrouw Pehlivan.

The rapporteurs refer to their written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this resolution was originally created in response to the proposal of the then French Minister of Foreign Affairs Fabius to revive the Middle East peace process by organising an international conference on the subject.

We wanted to make it clear in a resolution that the Belgian Parliament supported the initiative. We also wanted to encourage the federal government and, in the case of enlargement, the European Union to fully support this new drive in the peace process.

However, gradually we have expanded our focus within the resolution. Several draft resolutions on Israel and Palestine were already on the table. We saw this as an opportunity to come up with a single broad resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee. Instead of always making resolutions on part problems, we wanted to come up with a resolution that gives a more global view of the conflict and discusses all problems together.

We are therefore very pleased that the opposition has actually given us the opportunity to sit together on this issue across chambers, in order thus to come to a broadly carried text.

Colleagues, although this is not the fastest way of working, we have demonstrated that we can work together across the boundaries of opposition and majority. It was also hopeful to see that on many issues on the topic there is unanimity on the path to a solution.

Also within the committee we were able to discuss constructively on matters that were not included in the resolution. For example, additional requests were added regarding the Belgian differentiation policy. It is now explicitly called for the immediate freezing of Israeli settlement policy. There is also a direct call to Fatah and Hamas to sit around the table together.

However, the main change to the resolution is that we call on the federal government to take diplomatic initiatives from now on, to demand compensation from Israel for the destruction of Belgian development projects in the Palestinian territories. Colleagues, that is one of the important matters that we ask and demand in the resolution, together with other relevant EU Member States, if possible, but purely bilateral, if necessary.

The final result that is anticipated must therefore be seen. Specifically, we ask the Federal Government for the following. We call on both sides to stop all actions that lead to further escalation of the conflict and hinder a two-state solution.

Specifically, this leads to the following demands: a condemnation of Israel’s settlement policy and the demand for its immediate freezing; the urge to lift the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt; a condemnation of Palestinian rocket attacks and the construction of tunnels; joining – and encouraging the EU to do so too – the French initiative to restart the peace process by organising an international conference on this subject.

At the moment, however, it does not appear that this conference will come soon, but it shows that we want to bring vitality back to the peace process. The total lack of negotiations between the parties is more harmful than good.

We also call for a further expansion of the EU’s differentiation policy to prevent Israeli companies in Palestinian settlements from benefiting from bilateral treaties between the EU and Israel. We also demand a condemnation of the Israeli destruction of Belgian development projects and we ask to take diplomatic initiatives from now on to demand compensation.

Colleagues, you may have noticed that I have cited some points twice, in order to emphasize the importance of the topic.

I believe that in this resolution we have taken into account the concerns of the opposition as far as possible. I hope we can approve them unanimously. After all, a room-wide resolution sends a much stronger signal, both to our own government and abroad. This is what we try to ⁇ with our resolutions: that they have the maximum impact in practice.

I would also like to thank colleague Wouter De Vriendt for his incredible perseverance in jointly reaching an agreement on this resolution. I consider that the two amendments submitted by Mr De Vriendt and Mr Hellings, and which were unanimously signed by the other colleagues, also give an important signal. After all, it is very important that we clarify — I will mention their reasons, but Mr. De Vriendt may soon come back to it himself — that the differentiation policy should not lead to a punishment of the companies and entities that are not involved in the development and maintenance of the settlements and that do not carry out business activities there. I find it important to emphasize this point again in my explanation today.

I am pleased with the hand outstretched and I sincerely hope that all my colleagues will soon unanimously approve this resolution. I also thank the services and everyone who has actively participated in this. It is a resolution that we have worked on for a very long time. It was a process of progressive understanding. The result may be there. We are sending a strong signal to the outside world. I hope it can come, but especially that there will be change in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the work that has occupied us has led us to try to answer important questions. So how can Belgium, on its own scale, resume a peace process in the Middle East? How should Belgium position itself towards Israel, but also the Palestinian Authority, taking into account a historical context and acts of provocation that, unfortunately, do not cease to multiply? How can we find a peaceful solution based on the coexistence of two democratic and independent states, each having the right to live in peace and security with borders that are mutually recognized, accepted and respected? These are some of the numerous key questions our Committee on Foreign Relations has tried to answer.

It is true that we had to be patient before seeing the debate open and above all result, even if, in my opinion, it is not closed. In fact, at the beginning, the majority showed itself a bit frileous not wanting to approach the subject too much, especially since Mr. Reynders was to carry out a mission in Israel and Palestine and that this point could complicate his mission.

We may regret that our parliamentary agenda depends, in some way, on government goodwill, but the important thing is that the majority ultimately submitted a draft resolution on the Middle East peace process. I would really like to welcome this approach and the openness towards the opposition in this context.

Mr. Speaker, I will not criticize what Ms. Grovonius has just said because, for once, she makes a compliment to the work between majority/opposition. History has its truths. I don’t like when we turn things back. In other words, the majority has never been frigid on this subject. We had simply asked to wait for Minister Reynders' trip on the spot so that he could give us more current items so that we have a much more grounded resolution than we could have obtained before his trip. So the truth has its rights, Madame Grovonius.

Your truth has its rights. You will allow me to have a different interpretation of the facts. No matter what, we will not argue forever on this point. We can move forward.

I would like to welcome the work and tenacity of my colleagues in the opposition. Without all the initiatives that have been taken and the texts deposited, the text we are discussing today would never have come into being. If the various draft resolutions we have submitted had not been submitted, whether it were the text of my group that I wrote on administrative detention and on Palestinian prisoners, whether it was the text of my colleagues from Ecolo-Groen on the destruction of projects financed by the Development Cooperation and the compensation for these projects destroyed, whether it was the text of my colleague from Sp.a, my chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Van der Maelen, on the reconstruction of Gaza, if all these texts had not been written and deposited, we would not be brought today to discuss this resolution.

The mission of the section of the Interparliamentary Union Belgium-Palestine, which I presided over this year, led us, returning from this mission, together with all my colleagues who represent a wide range of parties represented in parliament, to advocate for Belgium’s support for the French initiative.

It is also important to recall the work carried out within the framework of this mission of the Interparliamentary Union. This was also an important milestone in the preparation of the text discussed today.

I welcome the work done, even though the opposition texts were eventually rejected in the committee. I am convinced that they allowed the majority to write this resolution. Not exactly what we have in our banks today. Indeed, the first martyr text, open to discussion, was a little more frightening. But, thanks to the work of openness and constructive opposition we have carried out, several key amendments have been submitted to strengthen the original text of the majority.

Once it is not customary, I thank, again, my colleagues from the majority authors of this resolution for really taking the time to seriously study the submitted amendments. Many of them have been adopted in committee and are an integral part of the text we are talking about tonight. The work carried out together allows our commission to resume a long tradition of concertation between the majority and the opposition, a tradition that had not been cultivated for several months.

This resolution indeed played an important role: to frame our country’s diplomatic and development action in the region, at a time when Israel could legalize its settlements in the West Bank and where we must recognize that the peace process is inexorably sinking into a crap.

We can neither lower our arms nor diminish our diplomatic efforts and pretend that nothing is happening or try to give us good conscience by making press releases or resolutions. It is time to act in order to lead now, and not at a hypothetical appropriate time, to a lasting peace solution.

A lasting solution that must end the human suffering of generations of Palestinian and Israeli civilians who ultimately never experienced peace and security in this endless region.

For more than half a century, the conflict in the Middle East has undermined international relations, the stability of this neighboring region of Europe and, above all, the lives of the people who live there. Too much blood has already shed in this conflict!

You know, this situation is a global source of undeniable radicalization that can have global consequences.

And, in the face of this ongoing conflict, Belgium has always been an adherent of a respectful approach to international law aimed at the recognition of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people which goes, in particular, through the end of the occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories as well as the right to the security of the State of Israel and its inhabitants.

Asking all parties to respect the rule of law is ⁇ not a provocation, and criticizing certain Israeli policies is neither being against that state, nor not recognizing its right to security. It is simply to require that rule of law, a member of the UN, to respect international law because no rule of law is above any international law.

Therefore, as was the case with the “protective edges” operation, how could one not condemn the disproportionate use of force, strongly denounced by the UN itself? How could we close our eyes on the death of so many civilians? How can we ignore all the repeated attacks on the peace process as recently as Israel seeks to legalize its settlements?

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

Now, let’s talk about the majority. I must confess that between our debate, here, on the recognition that my group would have wanted immediate Palestine, in 2015, already, and this text, you have made the way. The adoption, in particular, as I said, of several Socialist amendments and other opposition groups has helped to significantly strengthen a basic text that may have left much to be desired.

I would like to mention, in particular, the addition of recital h, which recalls that our country does not recognize any modification of the line of borders before 1967. The addition of recital i also indicates that Israeli settlement is illegal under international law.

I would also like to mention point 4 which now refers to the deepening of the policy of differentiation between the Israeli settlements and Israel. This point will also be reinforced by the amendment that was submitted today by my colleague De Vriendt and which I co-signed.

I would also like to mention points 5 and 6, which refer to the need to implement the guidelines of the Interpretative Communication of the European Union, but also the recommendation of the SPF Economy, as my group has been asking for many months.

Point 8 requires the immediate cessation of colonization, equivalent to a freeze that is imposed on us, if we still want to safeguard the last chances of seeing the two-state solution concrete one day.

Point 12 refers to elections that are continually postponed and that are more than ever needed to restore legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority and its leaders.

Point 15 calls for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza.

Finally, point 17 allows the inclusion of the full paragraph on administrative detention, a point which is ⁇ important to me given my proposal for a resolution filed on the subject.

The clarifications that are made will ⁇ allow us to better guide our diplomacy when the subject of detention is discussed with the Israeli authorities. We also recall the importance of guaranteeing the right of Palestinians to a fair trial, which I think is fundamental.

Despite all these advances, which I welcome, the problem is that the situation in this region requires strong commitments for peace. The situation has been slowing down and worsening even for many years. The regional geopolitical context is at least explosive. And I’m not even talking about the election of the new American president, who does not risk pacifying the situation. We really need to show even more courage. I may regret that the right time has not yet come, allowing a better understanding of why this contradiction is included in point 4, concerning the policy of differentiation.

Indeed, according to my group, one cannot ask on the one hand to deepen this policy of differentiation and, at the same time, to demand that this does not cause any decrease in investments in Israel for entities whose whole or part of the activities are located in the occupied Palestinian territories. You rejected the amendment of my group removing the end of this request. It was not at all about questioning trade relations with the Hebrew State within its borders recognized by our country. But these relations must be carried out in compliance with international law and the Belgian and European directives that exist, but which, unfortunately, are not applied in fact by this government.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Grovonius, I share the essence of your thought on the maintenance of the end of the sentence. We voted for your amendment. You and I know our position on this issue. This is not what we want to propose.

But the challenge of a resolution like this, which has been worked on many times, including at the last moment with the amendment that Mr. De Vriendt took the initiative and that you will vote like most colleagues here, is to appear, opposition and majority, united in the face of Israel.

It is true that the amendment you have proposed to remove the word "boycott" with respect to Israel, which annoys me, was amended with the addition of a point 5 and a point 6, which, I recall, aim to fully implement the European instructions of 9 July 2013 on labelling, inserting a clear territorial limit in all bilateral agreements with Israel in the future. De Vriendt’s amendment makes it very clear that trade between Israel and the European Union, and Belgium therefore, can only concern products manufactured within the recognized international borders of 1967. It is clear and clear.

Finally, point 6, which was added by the majority, at the initiative of several colleagues from the majority and the opposition, including you and us, provides for the full implementation of the SPF Economy recommendation on labelling.

I acknowledge, like you, that this is not the ideal text, as we have filed at other times in this Parliament. Nevertheless, advances are sufficiently significant, including with last-minute additions. I think that justifies that we voted this resolution, in the name of the good work done together and the pressure we can then put on Israel.

I hope that we can, in a constructive way, convince you to change your point of view. I am very sensitive to your argument. We share it. However, I think that voting in favour would improve our country’s strength ratio with Israel.

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Hellings. We share the same point of view on this matter. I would end by saying that the amendment that was submitted today by Mr. De Vriendt significantly improves the deficiency found in that paragraph. Nevertheless, there are still elements that, for me, are not present, in particular the fact that, at this stage, there is always a refusal to consider the implementation in Belgium of a mandatory labelling mechanism for products coming from colonies, of an effective control mechanism but also of possible sanctions. In the paragraph we are discussing, there is obviously the question of boycott that is indicated, but the question of sanctions is also there, and it poses question. I am not saying that it must necessarily be accomplished, but we cannot shut down any possibility of being able to use it if we put in place a mandatory mechanism with controls on labelling. Unfortunately, the fact that this possibility is officially excluded does not strengthen our position.

Mr. Speaker, this is to make the debates dynamic and I will not contradict Mrs. Grovonius. If tomorrow there is a majority in this parliament to decide that products from the Israeli settlements can no longer be imported or sold in Belgium, the amendment that Mr. De Vriendt proposed, and you co-signed, allows this possible majority to vote on a law that prohibits products manufactured and from the Israeli settlements.

I also think that, in the long run, we should be able to think about sanctions and other sanctions against Israel. But if, tomorrow, we want to vote on a law that prohibits the sale of products from Israeli settlements outside the 1967 borders, we can vote here. And I will vote for it with enthusiasm, probably with you.

Probably with me. I wish I could already vote on this kind of element from tomorrow in the text that is presented to us.

Another point that remains problematic for my group and myself: point 10. The wording is at least blurred. Again, the real strength of a formulation like this is very weak. I will read this point. It indicates that we must undertake diplomatic initiatives from now on, in consultation with the European countries concerned and, where appropriate, on a bilateral basis, to get the Israeli government to accept the principle of compensation for the destruction of development projects financed in whole or in part by the Belgian Development Cooperation.

I’m sorry, but in summary, it gives a bit of the impression that Israel is destroying projects legally funded by our Belgian development cooperation, and that we just ask them to accept the principle of compensation. I have a little feeling that this is no longer diplomacy but almost abnegation.

I would like to refer to the report. Everyone could read it, Mrs. Grovonius too. The report is very important with regard to point 10. You were not in the committee when we voted on it, Mrs. Grovonius, and I will explain two points to you.

It may happen, Mr. Flahaux, that colleagues are not present.

Importantly, first, we asked the cabinet representative which countries specifically would like to participate in a consultation with Israel, especially to demonstrate that one and the other cannot. Second, it has been made clear by Green’s colleagues that we do not make illusions of ever seeing the money back.

What we find especially important is that the countries that want to follow, with Belgium at the head, clearly emphasize that what happened cannot happen and that we assume that it will not happen again. As a signal, point 10 of the resolution can count. What we were especially afraid of was that we would once again turn around in Europe to get all our noses in the same direction. It turned out that this could not be done within Europe. A number of countries have clearly indicated that they would take a step further. This was clearly emphasized by the representative of the Cabinet. Taking point 10 of this resolution together with the piece of the report gives a very clear signal, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and the whole world.

Madame Grovonius, it is true that you were in mission during the last discussion, and that is a pity. We will explain how we have reached this compromise. Point 10 is a compromise accepted by the majority as a result of our two resolutions to Mr. De Vriendt and myself...

The two amendments.

Two resolutions on compensation requested for cooperation projects destroyed by Tsahal in the occupied area.

Certainly, you can consider it to be a bit soft. This is your point of view. But it was that or not having anything at all. Then there is a significant advance that has been accepted by the majority parties. The words are “if necessary”. Until now, Minister Reynders, his representative and no majority party has accepted or considered compensation requested unilaterally. You will find the debate in parliamentary work, as Ms. Lijnen pointed out. The phrase "if necessary" clearly refers to the initiative that the Foreign Minister will take when it is found that European actions will not be successful, unilaterally demanding compensation from Israel.

Point 10 was drafted based on what the Minister’s representative explained to us, namely that, as you know, the Israeli position is completely opposite to this viewpoint and is not even ready to consider going in this direction. The Minister’s representative stated for the first time: “We will not shrink behind the position of a European initiative. The majority agrees to request a unilateral initiative after this process, to speak to Israel in a clear way and to lead it to accept the principle of compensation."

So, in all friendship, it’s not about smoking or an attempt to have you without warning you. It is really the result of a democratic work, of a political discussion, where we have reached this compromise – compromise which, for me, is quite honorable, since we are moving towards a position that allows Belgium to tell Israel its fact about these destructions that are politically unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize again what I have said in my subsequent presentation and what I have also said in the committee. This is important for the report.

Mr Grovonius, you are correctly referring to point 10 of the resolution. However, let it be very clear that this is an explicit condemnation of the Israeli destruction of Belgian development projects.

This point came because we had a conversation with the head of the cabinet, who made it very clear that we want to make progress with the countries that are benevolent. The countries that do not want to participate and have so far delayed the process, we leave behind. We are taking a step forward. Internationally, the signal is stronger when we, with multiple parties, send this message to the world.

In addition, in order to meet the aspirations of the opposition, which we have listened to very carefully and for which I also have an understanding, we have added that it can also be bilateral, if necessary. I think that this is a response to the concerns you have rightly expressed here.

I apologize for my absence in the committee. I was on a mission abroad. I reassure you, I have read the report since I am even one of its co-authors and that, in addition, I have been informed of the discussions that took place in the committee. I know that this paragraph is a compromise. I think I have myself highlighted all the advances and all the important elements on which I never thought I would see the majority accept our amendments or requests made.

Mr. Hellings, Mrs. Lijnen, you will not prevent me from dreaming and asking for more. I think this is a compromise. You have agreed something with a cabinet representative to try to have an acceptable proposal, including at the government level. I am a parliamentary. I am in Parliament. It is true that, in relation to this element, having a paragraph in which, at some point, one would have a request to the government to receive merely compensation, would seem to me more successful than the alambicated formula that is found in the text today, even though I acknowledge that it is a good advance compared to some positions taken earlier.

I will not return to the text on destruction. However, I would like to emphasize the point relating to compensation because, in that paragraph, there is no specific timing. We do not set a deadline. If we sign up from now on to a step following which we accept that at a given time, bilateral discussions are conducted, but we do not know in what time. Even if this was discussed in the committee, it would have been interesting that this data is included in the text. Indeed, this would have constituted an additional commitment within the framework of a text that will, ⁇ , be voted by all parliamentarians.

Anyway, this text is important in that such destruction is intolerable. And when you hear the Israeli ambassador talk of a “misunderstanding” when projects such as those in question are destroyed, the answer given must be at the height of the provocations suffered to date. It is therefore very important that bilateral discussions on this issue can take place. But there is a lack of “little soul supplement” in order for this text to be acceptable for my group.

I hear your argument, Mrs. Grovonius, regarding the lack of timing, but there is an advance. The majority accepts that Belgium progresses unilaterally towards Israel. Ms. Lijnen is right: in the discussion that is found in our work, which the Israeli embassy will be able to read, the European countries that, in the European process, blocked were specified. We discussed and unanimity emerged from the work of this commission, unfortunately without you who were working abroad at the time. This unanimity demonstrated that we identified the European countries that were braking, but also those who were ready to go in the same direction. There is a profound paradigm shift. That is why Mr. De Vriendt and I will vote with enthusiasm on this resolution and this paragraph. We agreed, all parties confused, on the fact that, with other progressive countries on these matters, Belgian diplomatic initiatives, and therefore unilateral, eventually with friendly countries, would be taken to put Israel before its contradictions, its financial responsibility with regard to Belgian projects financed in Zone C.

I do not necessarily read the elements in this text in the same way, but we are not obliged to agree.

Another point I would like to highlight is point 15. I regret that paragraph 15 does not refer to the unlawful nature of the blockade of Gaza. This would really have added extra weight to our request to see this blockade lifted at some point.

Then there are two issues on which this text is also silent and which are yet essential. The first of these points will not surprise you, it is obviously the formal and immediate recognition of the State of Palestine, alongside the State of Israel, by Belgium. I regret that Belgium has chosen not to follow the Swedish example. However, such recognition would have been a very concrete contribution of Belgium to the solution based on the coexistence of two democratic and independent states, which have the right to live in peace and security, with borders mutually recognized, accepted and respected.

The second point I would have wanted to find in this text is the support that our country could have provided to the families of prisoners held administratively for the exercise of functions related exclusively to projects developed and financed through our indirect, direct or multilateral bilateral development cooperation.

It is for these reasons that...

Mrs. Grovonius, I did not understand your second point, but if you submit an amendment, we are ready to analyze it.

It has already been submitted and discussed in the committee.

I didn’t understand it, but it doesn’t matter. Regarding your first point, namely the recognition of the Palestinian State, we had, a year and a half ago, a long discussion with as few people as we do today in the cemetery. I would like to point out that, although I am a fervent supporter of the immediate – and not at an appropriate time – recognition of the Palestinian State, this recognition was not a point contained in either of the resolutions deposited; neither yours, nor that of the majority, nor in our, nor that of Mr. Van der Maelen. You may regret, like some of us, that the independence of the Palestinian State has not been addressed, but if you want to restart an in-depth debate on the subject, let us do so through a resolution that you will file, but this has not been the subject of any resolution. The debate should not be held here.

This is obviously a resolution that I have already submitted, since it was following it that the majority had submitted a text on the recognition of the State of Palestine at the appropriate time. On the other hand, this question of the recognition of the State of Palestine is not found as a request in the text on administrative detention, but rather, in developments, as an important criterion allowing at a given moment to facilitate the peace process in the region. This is essential if we want to reach this goal of peace in the Middle East region, a goal that is inscribed in the title of this resolution.

Since you have not understood the second point that I developed, I explain it to you. People who work for Palestinian associations or NGOs, often in the field of human rights defense, have been placed in administrative detention for one year, one year and a half, two years. These people develop projects financed by the Belgian Development Cooperation.

My request was to analyze the extent to which Development Cooperation could continue to support these individuals and associations financially so that they can continue to work despite the fact that their director, for example, is in administrative detention for periods that are sometimes very long and can compromise the sustainability of the structure. Either they stop paying that director who no longer performs his work on the ground because he is in prison, or they must hire another person and pay two salaries to perform this management work, which would undermine the viability of the structure.

This was the request that was formulated in my motion for a resolution and I would have wanted to see it appear in the section on administrative detention.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the European Union and Belgium are called to be actors of peace and human development in their Mediterranean neighborhood, of which the Middle East is part, and that our goal must not be limited to constituting this or that phenomenon and to be indignant about this or that other event but that beyond words, concrete actions are needed at a given moment.

There is the action of our government but also that of our parliamentary diplomacy that must be there to create bridges and also relay the difficulties of our cooperatives, NGOs but also of certain civilian victims, arbitrary detainees or even refugees.

We really need to have the courage to look at this suffering face-to-face to motivate our diplomatic and cooperative actions rather than balancing what unfortunately is wrong, to then reconstruct what has been, and will continually, consciously destroyed by actors who find their interest in the status quo.

We must find a negotiated political solution with the support of the international community and the European Union to bring this sustainable solution that we call for.

Waiting for the restart, and above all the completion, of this peace process, we must respond to the crying shortage that affects civilians, as is ⁇ the case in the Gaza Strip. We must prioritize our diplomacy to seek a sustainable and acceptable solution for all.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister temporarily in charge of Foreign Affairs, I would tend to say, to begin with, "I have a dream." I dream that one day, whether you call yourself David or Soufiane, you can live in peace, whatever the territory you occupy.

Dear colleagues, I had the impression when I heard my cherished and honorable colleague Mrs. Grovonius, of living a theatre piece that I saw not long ago, and which was called Antigone.

Antigone is a woman of faith, but she does not want to make any compromises. In the name of this refusal to compromise, it ultimately does not advance the situation. I agree with the idea that in order to move forward in life, compromise must be made. We are a Parliament. What do we do on a daily basis, other than compromise, take one step towards the other to advance legislation and the causes that are dear to us all? If you put yourself in the position of refusing any compromise, you have your truth, a part of truth, but you will never move things forward. We have another philosophy. Socialist and social-democratic parties across Europe accept the compromise. I had the feeling that we were going back to an unforgettable time.

Our assembly has already shown how confused all political currents, we attach great importance to the situation in the Middle East, and in particular to the peace process between Israel and Palestine. We have already many times long debated the issues of occupied territories, refugees, colonization, destruction of houses and infrastructure, armed violence causing many unnecessary victims, negotiations, unfortunately, too often in the impasse.

We are discussing this again today to support the concrete action of the government in its common will with our European partners – there are approximately fifteen socialist governments in Europe – to move forward with the aim of achieving a lasting peace between these two peoples. This objective is still alive in the whole heart of the political forces that make up this Parliament, the number of resolutions deposited and signatories testify to this.

The Reform Movement firmly believes in the possibility of this peace. Our attachment to these two peoples, our development cooperation with Palestine, the very strong ties that bind us to Israel, especially since the Shoah, command us not to divert our gaze from this war, with its crowd of deaths, destruction, violence, which make the ground fertile to a radicalization of ideas and acts.

Our diplomacy has constantly called for a definitive settlement of the conflict and for the construction of a lasting peace between the two sovereign and independent states – for this is an essential element: two sovereign and independent states –, guaranteeing the security of all citizens recognized by all states in the region.

We have supported the important efforts of the Quartet to advance towards the resolution of the conflict on these bases. As our Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Foreign Affairs, we all hope to see economic cooperation established that, as we have done in Europe, guarantees and strengthens peace and harmony between peoples.

The announcement of holding a conference bringing together Israeli, Palestinian and European economic actors in Brussels next month can only delight us. Anything that goes in the direction of dialogue is a positive step. We do not cease and will never cease to call on the battleholders to measure, to respect the fundamental rights of the peoples to live in peace, security, in dignity, within well-defined borders and, above all, respected. This security and dignity passes through the fact of having a roof, water, electricity, of what to feed, to work, to educate in a spirit of respect. This is the word that is missing most there: mutual respect.

This is why our country cooperates with Palestine to provide its inhabitants with decent or the most decent living conditions possible. That is why we call on the Israeli government not to destroy houses and infrastructure, not to incite the Palestinians to the despair and violence it nourishes, not to further dig the gap that separates it more and more from the Palestinians.

Today, the Israeli government wants to negotiate only bilaterally and without preconditions with Palestinian authorities weakened financially and politically, due to the absence of regular elections for about fifteen years, I believe, with an extremely limited capacity for action. International diplomacy therefore tries, in particular under the impulse of the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Ayrault, whom Mrs. Grovonius knows, to facilitate this negotiation by working on the consolidation of the institutions of the future Palestinian State.

Obviously, what I tell is not interested in Mrs. Grovonius. Madame Grovonius, I listened to you carefully. You could have a minimum of politeness and do the same.

The construction of economic support to this State, following the peace agreement, has the support of civil society. It does so while solemnly affirming that only the two-state solution can receive its support.

To promote the emergence of this agreement and allow for effective recognition of Palestine as a state, even if the position of the current Israeli government complicates a little – and this is an euphemism – or even gives a lot, a reflection on the status of Jerusalem, on the refugee issue, on the issue of borders, on the issue of colonization is carried out in partnership with regional and Western diplomats, in order to develop what is called an accompanying package around this forthcoming resumption of negotiations between the two sides.

It is obvious that although impatient and because impatient, we support this initiative. That is why we must respect both the framework and the spirit, without risking to put them at risk by decisions ⁇ generous and honorable, but potentially counterproductive.

The resolution for the recognition at the right time of Palestine as a state, which we adopted last year, is part of this perspective. The resolution we are going to vote today shows the support of the Belgian Parliament and we hope unanimously to further strengthen the weight of this resolution, but ⁇ Antigone will not want to.

By calling for the resumption of the Middle East peace process and urging the federal government and the European Union to fully support it as well, she asks the government to call on both sides to cease any action against a solution based on the coexistence of two states, on the basis of the 1967 borders.

It also calls for the condemnation of the State of Israel’s colonization policy and for the immediate cessation of it. It also calls for the end of the blockade of Ghaza by Israel and Egypt. And Egypt too. It calls for the condemnation of Palestinian rocket firing and the construction of tunnels. Finally, she asks to join the French initiative, taken by Mr. Fabius – it is still more sympathetic, isn’t it Antigone? - aiming to restart the peace process by organising an international conference even if, as mentioned above, its holding is postponed.

It will also be met in part at the meeting of economic leaders next month in Brussels, which joins another step in this resolution that calls in several paragraphs:

1 of 1. to contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza by organising an economic conference and providing bilateral development assistance;

2 of 2. to promote the EU's differentiation policy by fully implementing the SPF Economy Recommendation on the labelling of goods from the Palestinian Territories;

3 of 3. condemn the destruction of Belgian development projects in Israel and request, if necessary, bilateral compensation;

4 of 4. condemn the administrative arrests of Palestinians and, in particular, members of political and associative movements;

5 of 5. to continue to advocate for human rights activists;

6 of 6. to insist on the Israeli authorities to accelerate the transfer of powers and responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the so-called Zone C;

7 of 7. To insist on Hamas and Fatah for reconciliation and the holding of elections allowing a legitimate and effective Palestinian political representation because a country without elections is not a real country.

The wider a consensus emerges, the stronger the signal will be – I allow myself to insist again – and will have chances of being heard by our government but, beyond that, by Europe. It comes in support of the policy conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs and beyond abroad, at a time when American policy – Ms. Grovonius recalled, rightly – on this issue may be less readable – it is an euphemism – and potentially less balanced in the future.

Clearly and in summary, I congratulate myself on behalf of the MR of this resolution on which we have worked together, majority and opposition, of the work done in majority but also in opposition on many points.

We even took into account the amendments submitted by the PS while no member of this group was present in the committee. It is rare, in my opinion, that this happens. In any case, we take our choice with pride.

I wish that the diplomatic efforts undertaken for many years will finally bear fruit and open to the Israeli and Palestinian people an era of peace, so long-awaited.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware that the peace process between Israel and Palestine is in an impasse. Parliament is very concerned about this. It is therefore important that we give the signal that the situation in the Middle East needs to be closely followed. With the present resolution, we intend to reinforce that process and address the concerns that need to be addressed in order to restart the peace process.

The resolution has thus become a broad resolution that encompasses a lot of concerns and that seeks to push forward a solution. It is therefore an exercise to approach the peace process between Israel and Palestine in a pragmatic and balanced way. We believe that this is the way to bring and keep the actors needed to carry out the peace process effectively, namely Israel and Palestine, at the table.

Our group calls for a peaceful and lasting two-state solution that takes into account the legitimate demands of both sides, namely the security of Israel and the formation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. We look forward to the international conference that will be held at the initiative of France.

The concerns we address in the resolution are as follows.

First, we would like to urge both sides to stop actions, provocations and acts of violence that could block the peace process and undermine the two-state solution.

A second concern is the situation in the Gaza Strip, which is very serious and should be given priority attention. The reconstruction of infrastructure and the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population are therefore essential. This resolution therefore calls for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza on both Israeli and Egyptian sides and to end the separation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

A third concern is the settlement policy, which undermines the two-state solution. We therefore call for the condemnation and immediate cessation of the Israeli government’s settlement policy. This also includes the destruction of development projects. Therefore, it is fully justified that compensation is requested.

The resolution sets out a number of clear and important steps by calling on the countries concerned, who also saw their projects destroyed, to demand compensation from Israel and if this fails to take further steps even at bilateral level. We want and must take the lead here as a country.

One last concern I would like to raise is the fact that it is also important that we sign up in the differentiation policy. With this differentiation policy, we want to continue to guarantee the two-state solution so that the Israeli settlements cannot benefit from the bilateral relations between the EU and Israel. But this does not lead to a boycott of Israel itself.

An important prerequisite for increased stability in the region is a reconciliation between the various Palestinian factions, so that the Palestinian Authority has authority over the entire Palestinian territory, and therefore also over Gaza. This resolution also calls for this.

We must also put an end to the secret weapons and militant actions in Gaza. These elements are also fundamental to enable the two-state solution.

In short, this resolution aims to reinforce the peace process between Israel and Palestine. Our group will therefore support this resolution. We would like to thank everyone who contributed to this resolution.

We congratulate colleague Van Peteghem on his maidenspeech. (The applause)

Colleague, there have already been better conditions to hold a maiden speech, but you should only be aware that who remains now is the hard core. It is actually the quality that drives up.

In the Committee on Foreign Relations, we have the habit of discussing a resolution from time to time. I find these resolutions rarely interesting because they are often copy/paste of government policy. Parliament has little added value. I believe that we, as Parliament, should be able to formulate that added value in resolutions that have a repulsive effect and that encourage the government to go beyond government policy. If we can adopt such resolutions, I think we will take our role as MEPs to heart.

The resolution that precedes is a good example. It does not follow the bad example of, unfortunately, most of the resolutions on the agenda of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Why is this resolution different from the other? Why is it better than average?

First, because the method was good. There has been a lot of discussion between the majority and the opposition. We have debated this resolution in the committee for a long time. Many amendments have been accepted by the opposition factions s.pa, PS and Ecolo-Groen. Two amendments from my group have been submitted today by the majority groups.

In short, we have established a lot of openness to come up with a text that can be a strong signal to all stakeholders. People who follow the issue know that resolutions on Israel and Palestine are read on embassies, on Foreign Affairs departments, and that they appear in – let me say so – the specialized press, to exert such pressure on us, people’s representatives.

We know that also in the Cabinet of Foreign Affairs – a representative of the Minister is present here – that signals arrive. The pressure on the cabinet is sometimes increased. This is obviously because the Middle East is a delicate region where many interests play.

If you ask for my opinion, we must be able to evaluate the situation in the Middle East, including from our own security interests.

I am convinced that this resolution is a signal that will come.

I would like to specifically thank Nele Lines, the chief speaker of this resolution. I also thank her colleagues of the majority for their open mind and for the constructive method that was followed here.

This resolution is also different from other resolutions due to its content. This is an example of a resolution that effectively urges the government to do things that it does not do yet. It is a resolution with a clear content. It includes a number of clear measures. For us, there are no unacceptable things.

Could the draft resolution go further? Yes, it could be. The text goes beyond the current government policy in many respects. The government is urged to take steps. In that sense, it can be a good and potentially strong resolution.

I would like to briefly address a few substantive elements.

The draft resolution very clearly confirms the two-state solution, which was evident a year ago. Now she is no longer obvious. In Israel, ministers, even government leaders, question the two-state solution. The debate in Israel is evolving to such an extent that one is increasingly starting to reject such a two-state solution. If that becomes a consensus, the Belgian Parliament will clearly make it clear that we do not want to commit ourselves to it.

We stick to the 1967 boundaries, that is, to Israel within the 1967 boundaries. In the current political debate in Israel, votes are going to legalize the illegal settlements in Palestinian territory. This is, in other words, totally contrary to the European consensus as well as to the Belgian policy on this subject. The fact that we stick to the 1967 borders is now more important than ⁇ ever before.

However, we go beyond the government policy, when we ask to strengthen the differentiation policy, also bilaterally.

In particular, we assert that Israeli settlements should not benefit from the relations between the European Union and Israel. We also write a very clear territoriality clause for all bilateral agreements we are still concluding with Israel. We also state that goods from the Palestinian territories still need to be labelled. We also call for the immediate cessation of settlement construction in the Palestinian territory.

In connection with the compensation we demand for the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure in the occupied territory, funded by our resources and by the Belgian Development Cooperation, we add another element. To the European Structural Dialogue, which was recently renewed and should result in an arrangement that prevents Palestinian infrastructure from being destroyed in the future, we add a useful process. From now on – so we are not waiting for the end of the European Structural Dialogue – we ask the Belgian government to take diplomatic initiatives, in consultation with the countries that are willing to do so like Belgium, in order to eventually obtain compensation.

Collega Linne is right when she refers to the report of the committee meeting. This clearly demonstrates the willingness to sit together with other countries. It is not about the whole European Union, but about the countries that like Belgium want to go ahead and see themselves blocked by other member states of the European Union. From now on, we will continue with a core group and will ask for compensation, together or bilaterally if necessary.

I would like to further address a number of current developments that make the timing of this proposal for a resolution equally interesting. The security situation in the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinian territories remains very precarious. The frustration and despair among the Palestinian population remains great. There has been a knife intifada ongoing for a year, with casualties on both sides, and many civilian casualties: ⁇ three hundred Palestinians and 33 Israeli killed. Yesterday, a Palestinian was shot dead on the West Bank. Four days ago, a Palestinian was shot dead at the Gaza border because he was throwing stones. Also on the Israeli side are victims: settlements are invaded and civilians are fished.

There are regularly new announcements of settlement permits, for example, early November 181 additional houses in East Jerusalem. With the election of Donald Trump, the teugls are also celebrated. In Israel, more than seven thousand new homes in settlements are now announced. The Knesset is currently discussing a law to legalize settlements retroactively, as I just said. The first reading in the Israeli parliament is already behind.

As for the destruction of infrastructure, on 12 April 2016, a playground in Za'atara, south of Nablus on the West Bank, was destroyed by the Israeli authorities.

Earlier, on September 29, 2014, there were damage to the electricity grid of Khirbet al-Tawil.

In Israel itself, the NGOs who are committed to the observance of human rights and international law are addressed. Human rights activists are making life difficult. Think of Brigitte Herremans, who is denied access to Israel for no reason. Brigitte Herremans is a valued voice in the debate.

There is also detention – Ms. Grovonius has rightly submitted a draft resolution on it – and undermining the rule of law in Israel.

So there are many reasons why a resolution and a stronger Belgian policy are opportune. For a number of substantive and methodological reasons, the opposition will support the proposed resolution.

We could of course go further. The position of our party is clear and well known. We have had a lot of parliamentary debates. We are in favor of recognition of Palestine. We are also in favor of a ban on the import of products from the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

Such initiatives are not excluded by what is now stated in the text. The resolution proposal represents an important step forward for us. It is a compromise, but it is a good and a strong compromise. It is not a half-packed compromise. It will arrive in the places where it should arrive.

I think we should continue on that path. We must impose respect for international law by putting pressure on the Israeli government. Let’s work on mandatory labelling of products coming from illegal settlements. Let us recognize the Palestinian State.

The proposal is a good, important step in the right direction. The opposition is pleased to participate in the process. We will also enthusiastically approve the text in the plenary session tomorrow.

I have two requests for intervention. The first is from Mr. Van Hees, who does not make us the honour of his presence. The second is Van der Maelen. If Mr. Van Hees returns before you have finished, we will give him the word. Otherwise, we will not benefit from its analysis.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will try not to make it too long. If you follow me, then my intervention can be very short. If you ask my personal opinion about this resolution, then I think the only meaningful thing we can do is send them back to the committee and begin the practice we have made again.

Why Why ? This resolution is outdated by one fact, in particular the election of Donald Trump in the United States. The starting point of this resolution is to work on a two-state solution, but — and I think there is a consensus on that with majority and opposition — the settlement policy is a major barrier to reach a two-state solution.

Just then, colleague De Vriendt pointed out the way Israel has responded to the election of Mr. Trump. Here and there, I can make a sentence and put a name on it. Do you know what Minister of Education Naftali Bennett, a minister of the Israeli government, said? He said that thanks to the election of Donald Trump, they can permanently bury the two-state solution. This was stated by a minister of the Israeli government.

I also think of the statements of several other ministers and politicians of the majority and of the opposition. Mr. Lapid, for example, apparently the great challenger of Mr. Netanyahu, has, freely translated, said that nothing now prevents Israel from creating even more facts on the ground and building even more settlements on the West Bank. That, colleagues, is the entirely new situation that has been created.

The text of this resolution was written from the assumption that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats would take over the presidency of the United States. If that had been the case, it would have been possible to satisfy the present resolution, though, in my opinion, with reasonable effort. However, the situation has completely changed. Again, if we take ourselves seriously, then we send this resolution back to the committee to leave the newly created situation, after which we determine what we think is necessary.

Let us not be naive. The colleagues of the majority strongly urge the resolution to be unanimously approved, as that will impress where it needs to be impressed.

Colleagues, I do not know if you still remember Moshe Dayan. You know how crucial the United States is to have an impact on Israel. Do you know what Moshe Dayan said about the relationship between Israel and the United States? “They give us money,” he said, “they give us weapons and they give us advice. And I, Moshe Dayan, suggest that we accept the money, that we use the weapons, and that we put the advice aside.”

To all those who have the illusion that a resolution unanimously approved in the Chamber will make some impression in Tel Aviv, forget it. With a Democratic president in the United States, one could still stop the appearance of a two-state solution. As I said in the committee, one must be almost hypocritical to close the eyes to the facts. The Oslo Agreement was signed in 1993. The deal was: peace for land, in which the Palestinians would receive a piece of land; 22% of the original territory was given to the Palestinians. Well, I said it already, the first ten years, so between 1993 and 2005, 250,000 settlers, 250,000 Israelis, have settled on the West Bank.

Between 2005 and the end of 2015, another 120 000 were added. And then I’m not talking about East Jerusalem, I’m talking only about the West Bank.

Paragraph 4 of the resolution concerns how we will react if Israel continues with the settlements. What does the majority propose? First, that our response will remain limited to what is called differentiation. I admit that the differentiation scope through the Green Amendment becomes a little wider, but before Trump’s election and ⁇ after Trump’s election you can’t make it that your only response to additional settlements is limited to differentiation. Therefore, it is unacceptable that at the end there is a saying: “Neither to economic sanctions against or to a boycott of Israel.”

Colleagues, there are 196 states in the world, 196 countries that are members of the UN. On the basis of what argument, political or legal, should an exception be made for Israel, so that that country can never be the subject of a sanction?

Netanyahu is the most moderate in the Israeli government. After Trump’s election, right-wing calls in Israel that the way is now open to build even more settlements and to permanently bury the two-state solution.

Then I come to the second stone of the offence, point 10. Ladies and gentlemen, read this text carefully. Again, there is progress. However, there is no timing. Never underestimate diplomats, especially if their minister is Didier Reynders. Look at that text. What is in it, colleagues, is the following, I quote: “...to take diplomatic initiatives to make the Israeli government accept the principle...” There is indeed a “principle.” It is not about compensation. It is not about taking diplomatic initiatives to get compensation. No, it is about asking the Israeli government to accept the principle of compensation for the destruction of infrastructure paid with Belgian tax money.

I come to my third and last point. I promised to be short. Our amendment is not included in the resolution. It was rejected. I do not understand why it was rejected. It is an appeal to the Belgian government to support the preliminary investigation by the International Criminal Court into the conduct of the Israeli army and of Palestinian organizations in the last two conflicts that have taken place in Gaza. I know that Israel absolutely does not want that. Israel considers itself a state that is not subject to international law and ⁇ not to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Colleagues, many countries, like the SPAA, are of the opinion that respect for international war law and international humanitarian law in their mutual confrontations is the least we can ask of both parties. The majority wanted that. Per ⁇ we would have gone beyond it, because with this text there is indeed progress, but after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, this resolution weighs too lightly.

Mr. Van der Maelen, we are almost always on the same line when it comes to Israel and Palestine, but you go too light on the signal we give with this and the importance of the resolution.

It is a comprehensive resolution that addresses much injustice currently taking place in the Middle East and the Palestinian territories. This injustice is caused by Israel. This is recognised in the resolution. There is a lot of outrage in it. It would be good if this would also happen in room wide. It is also good that it is repeated after a few years, so that all the minds in this hemisphere remain on the right line. I don’t think that’s something that we can just wipe out under the mat.

The resolution goes even further because we encourage the government to take steps that go beyond the current government policy. We are also in favor of recognition of Palestine and we are asking the government to recognize it. We would also ask that it radically defend a ban on products originating from the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but that may be for the next time. We will fight for it, hopefully with you.

However, the progress made by this resolution, both in terms of methodology and indignation and in terms of effective steps forward in policy, we consider sufficiently worth supporting.

As for your point on economic sanctions and the boycott of Israel, I have always understood that it was also the position of your party to go first toward a sanction against the settlement policy. That sanction against the settlement policy is just the deepening of the differentiation policy, which is literally stated in the resolution. We call on the Belgian government to deepen and strengthen this differentiation policy. We actually start with those compensations, for destruction of Palestinian infrastructure in the occupied territory, but it can of course go further. There is a European research programme involving our FOD Justice, EU LAW-TRAIN, which we believe does not adequately take into account that differentiation policy. Well, on the basis of this resolution, we have an additional tool in our hands to interpell our Minister of Justice about this and to ask him if he is not better to withdraw from that EU LAW-TRAIN project because it just doesn’t take into account the differentiation policy.

I come to a final point. When it comes to compensation for damages for destroyed Palestinian infrastructure, it is for me a major progress in this text that we are no longer waiting for the end of the structural dialogue, which actually already ended in March this year and which has been extended to the infinite. Until now, the attitude of the Belgian government has always been that we are engaged in that European structural dialogue and that we are waiting. We are going to put our points on the agenda, but we are waiting. If the government follows the request of the Parliament, then from now on the government must take other diplomatic initiatives in parallel with those few countries that are fully on our line to come to a demand for damages. I do not find it inconvenient that now another, more urgent and stronger diplomatic initiative is being launched. I think that is nothing. I think that you go fairly lightly on those points, which, in our opinion, may mean an improvement of the Belgian policy towards Israel and Palestine.

Mr. Speaker, you and I generally accuse the Foreign Minister of being very strong in the speech when, for example, the Israeli government decides to install new settlements. He was irreproachable in his speech at the time when Belgian Development Cooperation projects were destroyed by Tsahal in Zone C. In addition, the speech of the Minister of Development Cooperation was also extremely strong on this occasion. On the other hand, you and I can blame him that the political actions he subsequently made were weaker. If one can praise his posture, one can lament his lack of action.

You have cited two points in which Mr. De Vriendt and I have played a role through the amendments we have submitted. It is here a matter of the major advance in compensation and the "unilateral" mention which constitutes a first in the history of our commission and this parliament. Furthermore, the question of differentiation with, for the first time, the mention of a text that allows clearly, as I told Mrs. Grovonius, just recently, to imagine a rule, a law aimed at preventing the sale, in the future, of products from the colonies. Indeed, the text is very clear about the export of goods from Israel. This is the 1967 border.

These two elements demonstrate that there is real progress and that progress can be imagined, within the framework of an in-depth democratic parliamentary discussion, on these two matters. These advances are not to be taken lightly.

So I come to your argument about Trump. The knower of the field and the case you are usually advances better arguments. You know like me that even if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the power of the Israeli lobby on Mrs Clinton’s person would have been extremely high, even if Netanyahu hoped that Mr. Trump would be elected, which was the case.

With this resolution, which the Minister of Foreign Affairs can rely on, I think the European Union can move forward with its partners. It can advance both on compensation for destruction and on a rule that would allow in the future to prohibit the import of products manufactured in the colonies.

I would like to quote the end of point 4 of that resolution which states: "to ensure that the application of this policy of differentiation does not in any way lead to a limitation of European investments in Israel." This point is amended by Mr. De Vriendt to ensure that Israel is well distinguished from the occupied territories.

What makes me difficult, and what Mr. Van der Maelen has just pointed out, is the continuation of the sentence. It states that “the implementation of this policy of differentiation does not in any way lead to economic sanctions.” This poses difficulty because, contrary to what Mr. De Vriendt says, the policy of differentiation does not necessarily lead to sanctions, since the text explicitly indicates that this "cannot in any case lead to sanctions".

If, indeed, one wants to be credible and audible, one should not close the door to possible sanctions when the Israeli state commits acts that are, in view of international law, completely illegal.

This is indeed a difference of point of view. For me this is new. If you say you’re in favor of economic sanctions against Israel, and Israel within the 1967 boundaries – which we added through an amendment – then that’s at least a new tactic. It’s something we can discuss, but it’s not our tactic. Our tactic is to sanction first the settlement policy. This resolution opens up a number of new possibilities.

What we learn in the Foreign Relations Committee is that there is a language difference between diplomacy and politics. What Mr. De Vriendt has also said later is that in many resolutions we often ask ourselves: what have we now achieved with this? I think that with this resolution we have just taken a step further and that this comes through a collaboration that is primarily based on progressive insight. The debate was an enrichment and the result is here on the table today. Mr De Vriendt says that this resolution, which we will vote on tomorrow, will arrive where it should arrive. Mrs. Grovonius said that she finds it almost a pity that it took so long before we started this debate, for the well-known reasons. We have been very honest about this too. I understand that she regrets that.

You, colleague Van der Maelen, call on Trump to send the debate here and here again in the committee. I think it’s a missed chance that you don’t master. I also find it very unfortunate that you are proposing today, because of Trump, to bow the entire debate into the rubbish, to miss an opportunity with history here and not approve this. Sins, sins and sins.

I find it very nice to try to put me in the Trump camp, if one knows my opinion about the region and that of Mr. Trump. I don’t know if you noticed it, colleagues, but the first government leader who spoke to Trump after his election was Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu said in the election campaign: I commit to moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I could make the list even longer.

I go around. Colleagues, the difference of opinion with you, the majority plus the colleagues of Green, concerns two things. First I say, and I say it in French: "La donne a totalement changé".

The environment and the determining actors in the policy towards Israel and Palestine have completely changed. I have said it before. I did not give these examples by chance. This resolution is based on the option of a two-state solution and it is based on the statement that we must limit settlements.

Well, read what’s in Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers after Trump’s election. Forget it, it is over!

Secondly, colleagues, you have a great confidence – I am not surprised by the majority, but by the opposition – in the actions that should be made in the future based on this text.

I suggest that we look at what the effect of the election of Trump is and that we look at what the government makes of this text. Let’s say: appointment in a year.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the PTB is very attached to the issue of a just and respectful solution for Palestine under international law that involves ending occupation and colonization, the right to return of Palestinian refugees and equal treatment for all citizens. We will not support this resolution. I’ll give you the two main reasons and I’ll go to the main.

The first point is the return of the two sides back and forth: Palestine and Israel. There is today a clear situation of a state that has oppressed, discriminated, colonized a people for decades, and this in the most total disregard for international law.

As a reminder, since the launch of the Oslo Process in 1993, there has been the construction of the wall as well as 50,000 new housing units built in the West Bank and a few thousand more in East Jerusalem. The population of settlers in the West Bank increased from 116,300 in 1993 to 385,000 at the end of 2015. For East Jerusalem alone, this number increased from 146,800 in 1993 to 211,960 in 2015.

The blockade of Gaza continues. On November 16, the Israeli parliament passed a bill providing for the legalization of houses built by Israeli settlers in the West Bank on private Palestinian land. There is no desire for peace or recognition of the rights of Palestinians by the Israeli authorities at the moment, and that is exactly where the problem lies. This situation seems to be denied in this proposal for a resolution.

My second point, deriving from the first, concerns the absence of sanctions against the policy of the Israeli government. I think this is essential and the end of apartheid in South Africa seems to have shown it.

Labelling is a very good thing, but it is not enough. Measures must be taken to end the support of the Western governments for the Israeli government and the impunity it enjoys as a result. In addition to the three billion annual U.S. support, Israel receives support under economic cooperation agreements and European programmes such as Horizon 2020.

I also recently spoke during the oral questions to denounce one of those projects envisaged by these programs, the LAW-TRAIN project, which aims to strengthen the Israeli repressive apparatus and which directly involves the public authorities and Belgian universities. For this reason, we have been advocating, for years, with the PTB, for the cessation of Belgian economic missions in Israel. The resolution, on the other hand, takes an explicit position, stating that "in no case should there be a limitation of European investments in Israel, economic sanctions or a boycott against Israel." To advocate without any real means of pressure for a peace process, of which it is clear that the current Israeli leaders absolutely do not want, makes no sense. That is why we consider that this resolution goes beyond the question and is, therefore, counterproductive. We will vote against this proposal.