EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2004 2009 Delegation for Relations with Israel DRAFT REPORT by Jana Hybášková Chairwoman of the Delegation for Relations with Israel 33rd Interparliamentary Meeting European Parliament/Israel 23-25 September 2008 BRUSSELS CR\744960EN.doc PE401.188v01-00 EN EN 33rd Interparliamentary Meeting EP/Israel I . INTRODUCTION The 33rd interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Israel and a delegation from the Knesset was held in Brussels on 24 and 25 September 2008. There were five members in the Knesset delegation: Amira Dotan (Kadima, head of the delegation), Orit Noked (Labor), Benyamin Elon (Ichud Leumi-Mafdal), Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu) and Zvi Hendel (Ichud Leumi-Mafdal). The official meeting was preceded on 23 September by an interview with the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, and a reception opening an exhibition by the Israelis entitled ‘Fulfilling the Dream’. The official meeting was slightly curtailed because of the European Parliament’s busy schedule, and because the Israeli delegation wanted to have bilateral discussions. The talks departed slightly from the original agenda. Firstly, they covered the political situation, the positions of the political parties and relations with Europe. The second section covered relations between Israel and the European Union, new forms of antisemitism and the issue of refugees. Lastly, various forms and areas of cooperation between the European Parliament and the Knesset were debated. The interparliamentary meeting was flanked by a number of bilateral discussions: with the EP delegations for relations with the PLC and the Mashreq countries, with six political groups, and with representatives of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Finally, at the Knesset’s request, there was a presentation on the application of the EMAS system in the European Parliament. On 24 September the discussions were continued at two meals: a lunch hosted by the chairwoman of the European Parliament delegation, and a dinner hosted by Vice-President Marek Siwiec on behalf of the EP President. Also on 24 September the Knesset delegation, sitting in the diplomats’ gallery in the hemicycle, was officially welcomed by Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament. II. OFFICIAL INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETING OF 24 SEPTEMBER 2008 Jana Hybášková, chairwoman of the European Parliament delegation, officially welcomed the Knesset delegation to this 33rd meeting of the two parliaments. She congratulated the Israeli delegation on the excellent exhibition that had been jointly opened the previous evening, offering another opportunity to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. CR\744960EN.doc 2/12 PE401.188v01-00 EN 33rd Interparliamentary Meeting EP/Israel Amira Dotan, on behalf of the Knesset delegation, welcomed this further meeting with her counterparts in the European Parliament, and she thanked Ms Hybášková, the chairwoman of the European Parliament delegation, for the manner in which she conducted relations between the two delegations. She stressed the importance of the political situation in her country, with Tsipi Livni seeking to form a new government following the election of her Kadima party. She reaffirmed her delegation’s desire for robust and open dialogue on both sides. She felt that dialogue could only ever be really constructive if it did not focus on one aspect such as the peace process, which was admittedly crucial, but if it looked at the State of Israel as a whole. This was how the various cultural, social and economic aspects should be approached. Ms Hybášková proposed to concentrate on the first three items on the agenda: the situation in Israel, the EU-Israeli relationship and cooperation between the European Parliament and the Knesset. The situation in the Middle East had been and would be discussed at bilateral meetings with the EP delegations for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Mashreq countries and with the six political groups. 1. Situation in Israel First of all, Ms Dotan considered that it was in Israel’s interest for a new government to be formed reasonably soon. She pointed out that Israel was an open democracy in which everyone could express their opinion, as could be seen from the composition of the delegation, whose members she invited to speak. Stas Misezhnikov emphasised how much the issues of the peace process and land-sharing had become an obsession. That way of thinking failed to take account of something that was, in his eyes, the essential characteristic of a State: a community of views, a feeling of citizenship. He stressed that among the million ‘Arab’ Israeli citizens, there were many who failed to demonstrate the loyalty which citizens should have towards their State and their fellow countrymen. The constant attacks proved this time and again. That being so, the ‘two States’ solution seemed to him to be fundamentally flawed. A Palestinian State composed of ‘Arab’ citizens would have a homogeneous nature which a ‘binational’ Israeli State composed of Jews and Arabs would not. The latter would be constantly under threat from a conflict of values and mentalities. Zbigniew Zaleski, for the EP, wanted to know the views of the other Israeli political parties on this issue. The other members of the Knesset confirmed that their political parties were willingly taking part in the discussions on forming the new government. Zvi Hendel pointed out that the international community was paying far less attention to current political events in Israel than the size of the country warranted. Orit Noked reminded everyone of what had happened to the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who remained one of the key issues in discussions with the Palestinians. CR\744960EN.doc 3/12 PE401.188v01-00 EN 33rd Interparliamentary Meeting EP/Israel Ms Hybášková pointed out here that the European Parliament’s invitation to President Shimon Peres to address the plenary still stood. The same would apply for the new head of government, once it had been formed. The European Parliament was also closely monitoring the situation of Corporal Shalit, as its resolution of 4 September 2008 showed. On the way forward for the future, Benyamin Elon said that the expression ‘peace process’ concealed what Israel saw as its priority: safeguarding its security. The situation in this regard was not easy to analyse when a country presumed to be hostile such as Syria had a secure border, while another ‘friendly’ country like Egypt allowed arms through. A recent survey had said that 30% were now in favour of closer relations with Jordan. Ms Dotan called for pragmatism in the face of provocation from the Palestinians and the way they kept raising the stakes. She felt that a Palestinian State with a Jewish minority was feasible, and she called on Israelis to show maturity in discussions. 2. EU-Israeli relationship Ms Hybášková welcomed Ran Curiel, the Israeli ambassador to the European Union and NATO, and Nina Obermaier from the European Commission. At the chairwoman’s invitation, Mr Curiel summarised developments in relations between Israel and the European Union under the Association Agreement and the new Neighbourhood Policy. Their stronger relations were the outcome of dialogue, trust and constructive criticism on all levels. The Association Council’s decision of 16 June 2008 illustrated this position, and should not be seen as a ‘conspiracy’ between Israel and the European Commission. Mr Curiel talked about the progress achieved since the 1975 free trade agreement (strengthened in 1993) and the widening of areas of cooperation: current programmes (7th Framework Programme for Research and Development), new programmes, agencies and networks in areas such as the economic and social field, development, trade, justice/home affairs, transport, energy, information society, environment, education, etc. Paul van Buitenen asked where EU funding for UNWRA was actually ending up. He admitted that he did not have specific information, particularly about the money getting through to Hamas. The Israeli delegation said that this was an issue for the EU to sort out; it did, however, acknowledge that there was a sort of discrimination in the way that the international community dealt with refugees. Israel was taking in third and fourth generations of refugees without receiving any sort of funding whatsoever. Ms Hybášková recalled how many Jews had been abused and driven out of Middle Eastern countries since 1967. While recognising the need for financial aid to help the Palestinians to set up adequate administrative foundations, the Israeli delegation acknowledged that the issues raised, particularly by the UNWRA funding, were being closely monitored by a working group from the main political parties. CR\744960EN.doc 4/12 PE401.188v01-00 EN 33rd Interparliamentary Meeting EP/Israel Bastiaan Belder was concerned at the rise of a new form of antisemitism in a number of Member States in Europe. A debate followed on the nature of these phenomena and ways of combating them. Pierre Schapira called for caution when categorising the ‘incidents’ referred to, since the problem lay in how the terms racism, xenophobia and antisemitism were used. He pointed out that the Member States and their local authorities were responsible for analysing and clamping down on these incidents in accordance with the relevant national legislation. The European Parliament’s political groups were keeping a close eye on the resurgence of this behaviour, particularly in some of the new Member States. Ms Hybášková noted that the vast majority of the incidents referred to had more to do with distrust of the ‘other’, of the ‘foreign’, and so were a form of xenophobia. The situation of the Roma illustrated these abuses and the European Parliament was soon to adopt a position on the subject. While the EU had a Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Israel had a working group on human rights and combating antisemitism, which had contacts around the world monitoring these phenomena.