INTERVENTO NELLA SESSIONE SU GAZA DELL’ASSEMBLEA DEL CONSIGLIO D’EUROPA

MERCOLEDI’ 28 GENNAIO

ON. Fiamma Nirenstein,
componente della Delegazione Italiana presso il Consiglio d'Europa (Strasburgo)

(Discorso consegnato agli atti dell'Assemblea)

La commozione, la pietas che naturalmente suscitano morti e feriti, non possono e non devono essere usati come una cortina dietro cui si nasconde la ragione e si oblitera la coscienza. Così, invece, salvo rari casi, e, avvenuto nel nostro dibattito.

Data la necessità di essere brevi mi esprimerò per punti, affermando prioritariamente che gli aiuti umanitari devono essere potenziati e veicolati nelle mani giuste, come del resto sta cercando di fare il governo italiano.

1. Chiunque sottovaluti la disumana condizione in cui hanno vissuto centinaia di migliaia di abitanti della zona israeliana circumvicina a Gaza per otto anni, non consoce la situazione, purtroppo spesso ignorata dai media. Solo la solidarietà e la forza d’animo ha permesso a quegli uomini, donne, bambini, anziani di seguitare a vivere sotto bombardamenti continui. Morti e feriti il cui numero è stato limitato solo dalla estrema vigilanza verso la popolazione civili, case e beni distrutti, scuole e strutture pubbliche chiuse, continue sirene... Noi, come Consiglio d’Europa, e quindi guardiani dei diritti umani, avremmo dovuto essere là da anni a difendere la violazione di tutti i basilari diritti degli israeliani a causa dei bombardamenti, come avremmo dovuto essere là nella stessa funzione quando gli attentati dei terroristi suicidi, nella maggior parte di Hamas, hanno fatto più di mille morti, sugli bus, nei supermarket, nei caffè.

2. La guerra di Gaza non è parte del conflitto israeliano palestinese ma dell’attacco dell’islamismo estremista che non cerca nessuna soluzione concordata, ma la distruzione dello Stato degli ebrei. Hamas ha rifiutato il rinnovo della tregua e, nella notte del 24 dicembre, ha colpito Sderot e Ashkelon con 100 missili. Intanto, il primo ministro Olmert pregava dalla tv Al Arabja la gente di Gaza perché accettassero la tregua. Ma, recita lo Statuto di Hamas, che la sua battaglia proseguirà “fino all’uccisione dell’ultimo ebreo” (non israeliano, notare). L’Iran è stato determinante nel fare di Hamas una pedina strategica volta a perseguire l'egemonia dell’islam fondamentalista sul Mediorente, una forza antagonista rispetto a tutti i Paesi moderati sunniti dell'area, primo fra tutti l’Egitto; e, soprattutto, una forza invisa ai suoi stessi fratelli palestinesi laici, che ha torturato e perseguitato. Essi oggi, nella forma politica del Fatah, guidato da Abu Mazen, sono l’unico interlocutore per un processo di pace, e certo non lo è Hamas, terrorista e islamista. Hamas, sorta nel 1987, inoltre non è affatto il rappresentante legittimo di Gaza perché, benché vittorioso alle elezioni del 2006, ha subito impugnato le armi, ha cacciato Fatah e si è impossessato col fuoco del potere assoluto che esercita con estrema crudeltà e fanatismo, perseguitando i dissidenti fino all’uccisione extragiudiziaria e alla tortura.

3. Gaza non è affatto occupata, il tema dell’occupazione israeliana è stato qui sventolato del tutto strumentalmente, è stata sgomberata fino all’ultimo israeliano nell'agosto 2005, è stata lasciata ricca di strutture, infrastrutture e aiuti e anche aperta ai varchi secondo regole internazionali. La folle determinazione di Hamas a perseguire scopi terroristici, ha distrutto le sue possibilità economiche e civili. Hamas sacrifica e distrugge i suoi cittadini.

4. Il fatto che in guerra a Gaza ci sia stato un alto numero di morti e che invece gli israeliani ne abbiano avuti pochi è legato a una tragica realtà: Hamas, come si legge in molti reportages, ha usato massicciamente scudi umani, famiglie, bambini, strutture pubbliche, come moschee e ospedali, per coprire guerriglieri e depositi di esplosivo e armi. La sua leadership è rimasta nascosta negli ospedali, le sue ambulanze sono state usate per trasportare i guerriglieri, le sedi ONU come copertura di postazioni belliche. Israele, per contro, ha quasi ossessivamente protetto la sua popolazione con aiuto militare e civile in gran parte volontario, non lasciando mai indietro un vecchio o un bambino.

5. Israele ha certamente, dopo l’ingresso di terra dell’esercito, usato metodi severi per evitare perdite fra i militari, a differenza di quello che fece nel Libano del Sud. Tuttavia le accuse di aver sparato deliberatamente contro la popolazione civile appaiono fantasiose e criminalizzanti anche alla luce delle pubbliche dichiarazioni dei politici israeliani che ribadiscono regole ferree di rispetto per i civili. Per quanto riguarda il numero dei morti, anche in questo caso, nonostante i precedenti di Jenin e Qana, viene data per buona solo la versione palestinese, che peraltro comincia a presentare dati discordanti.

Qui ci preme ricordare che Hamas invece ha sparato per anni deliberatamente contro la popolazione civile israeliana, dischiarandolo senza vergogna.

6. L’aiuto che possiamo dare noi, è cercare di essere in sintonia con una verità meno fantastica e più reale, individuando il problema nella sua dimensione regionale e cercando di riportare la questione israelo-palestinese ai suoi interessi reali, che non sono certo quelli della jihad islamica praticata con l’aiuto dell’Iran; bisogna aiutare il popolo palestinese disponibile a una stabilizzazione politica, ovvero quello che fa capo alla leadership di Abu Mazen, a costruire le proprie istituzioni, a divenire un interlocutore economico, civile, politico per tutto il mondo democratico. “Nation building” deve essere la nostra parola d’ordine, e questo comporta interventi nel campo della cultura, dell'economia, del diritto... Tutte cose che riguardano il Consiglio d’Europa molto più della criminalizzazione, che in troppi interventi ho sentito, quando si è definito Israele come un criminale di guerra. E’ del tutto evidente che Hamas si è macchiato di violazioni essenziali che vanno dall’uso degli scudi umani alla scelta dei civili come obiettivi di guerra. Concludo ricordando un ventenne che è nelle mani di Hamas da quasi tre anni, Ghilad Shalit, di cui i genitori non hanno alcuna notizia e invito il Consiglio d'Europa a dimostrare un interesse e un coinvolgimento diretto nel suo caso.


Riportiamo il dibattito integrale svoltosi in Assemblea sui fatti di Gaza

6. Current Affairs Debate

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The final item of business this afternoon is a current affairs debate on the situation in Gaza.

      We decided to hold this debate now rather than tomorrow morning, but I am not sure that we made the right decision. I remind members that working with a timetable can have consequences. Those who spoke in favour of this change may or may not be present; if they are not, I would not like that.

Members are well aware of the immense importance of this debate and of the terrible events that have taken place in the past few years. There is a long speakers' list and the debate is limited to one and a half hours. All speakers will be limited to three minutes except for the first speaker, who is allowed to speak for 10 minutes. We will also hear from speakers from Israel and Palestine.

      Before I call Mr Lindblad, I call Mr Vrettos on a point of order.

      Mr VRETTOS (Greece) said that he felt strongly that the debate was not being given sufficient importance. The subject would have merited an entire day's discussion. The conflict involved over 2 000 innocent victims, including women and children. The timing of the debate showed that the Assembly was taking the matter far too lightly, and in that the Assembly was at fault.

      THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Vrettos and said that there were those in the hemicycle who shared his view. It was a shame that Mr Vrettos had not been able to make his intervention at the time when the change was agreed, when it would have been very timely. The Bureau had decided to hold the debate on Wednesday, and to give it a time limit of an hour and a half, which was the time allowed for current affairs debates. The Assembly had then voted to move the debate, and this was a shame. However, the sovereign decision of the Assembly could not be altered and the debate had to begin immediately. He called Mr Lindblad.

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I am sorry, Mr Vrettos, that you were not here when we decided to move the debate from tomorrow morning to today; that was proposed by the rapporteur on the Middle East, Mr Fassino, who strongly wanted to have it today because of tomorrow's strike. The vote was 51 to 50, so many members did not even take part in that decision. I, too, would have preferred to have had this debate at a better time; we agree completely on that. I do not think that Mr Fassino is here, which is a little strange.

      It is impossible to be unaware of recent events in Gaza – the war and its effect on the population in the region.

      Of course, the conflict did not start on 27 December. It did not start with the air strikes. Many mortars, shells and rockets have been launched from the Hamas side into Israel for at least two years, but in the few days before the conflict that increased to over 60 mortars or shells.

No country can accept being shelled and attacked, even if the rockets are not very precise. It is terrible for any population to live in a city or village where they do not know when the next bomb or rocket is coming, so I can understand the reaction from the Israelis.

It is also easy to understand the frustration of the Palestinians about being locked in Gaza. The situation is not easy. We must find a way to stop the smuggling of weapons. Some of the tunnels were built to smuggle in food but it is just as easy to smuggle in weapons at the same time. Perhaps the solution is to have a more open border – both sides should agree on that – with strict control on what is passing through the border, in order to stop more weapons coming in.

      Of course, it is not only Hamas that is causing the conflict. Iran is a big player in the region. It is not supporting Hamas or, for that matter, Hezbollah in Lebanon – the Palestinians or the Lebanese. With its nuclear programme, Iran has ambitions to have nuclear weapons and to destabilise the region. As long as it has that, its power and influence can increase. If there were a regime change in the mullahs' Iran, the situation would be better.

      It will help if we can have a negotiated peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. As long as the conflict continues, throughout the world, including Europe, the terror will not cease.

      In the conflict involving the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the Israelis and Hamas, it is not all the Palestinians and all the Israelis who are fighting. The issue is principally about whether to recognise borders. The way to solve the conflict is to have safe borders to the Palestinian state that are recognised by Israel and to have safe and recognised borders to Israel that are guaranteed by all its neighbours, including the new Palestinian state. That is the only way to have peace in the region, but many players are not interested in that. Extreme political parties in Israel are not interested in a negotiated peace, and Hamas and other militants on the Palestinian side want to keep the conflict alive, because without it they will have less opportunity to have exert power and influence. The same goes for another big player, Iran. It will try to finance as many weapons as possible.

      We can, as a Parliamentary Assembly, try to help and offer our political education and political knowledge to the parties. That process was begun by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Middle East, Mr Pavlidis, who has done great work in the tripartite forum.

      There have been direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They agree on about 18 out of the 20 points. We hope that that agreement can be reached pretty soon. That tripartite co-operation deals with little things such as co-operation on social activities, culture and making day-to-day life easier for populations on both sides of the border. That is in the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, but Hamas is not interested in such discussions. It is not easy to discuss with one's counterpart when they do not accept that you have the right to exist. Hamas still has on its programme the destruction of Israel, as does Iran. It is terribly difficult to have direct negotiations when someone would like to kill you as soon as you turn your back. There has to be a change of attitude on both sides; otherwise, that will not be possible. My proposal is that we continue the work in the sub-committee of the Political Affairs Committee. I hope that Mr Pavlidis is re-elected tomorrow as chairman of the sub-committee. Actually, I hear that that happened today, so I offer my congratulations because he is doing a great job. We should all try to support him and the process.

      We must also discuss between us how to deal with the Palestinian presence here. The Palestinians have asked for Observer status. I hear that that could be difficult formally, when they are not a country, but perhaps we can find some position in the middle. I have been told by Mr Abdullah that they will be less keen on coming if they do not have some status. I believe that we can be generous and find some way to do that. That would ease the possibility to have negotiations and meetings.

      As we are short of time, I will not continue my presentation any longer, but I hope that we can have an exchange of views with representatives of Israel and Palestine and allow time for other colleagues.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I now call Mr Abdullah.

      Mr ABDULLAH (Palestinian Legislative Council). – Thank you, colleagues, for remaining here at this late hour of the day, after heavy work, to listen to listen to the story of the Palestinians, who in the past few weeks have been subjected to a massacre that led to the killing of 1 374 people, with 115 still under the ruins of their homes.

      Yesterday, we and many around the world observed a one-minute silence for the victims of the Holocaust. I wonder whether anyone thought of having a minute's silence for the Palestinian dead. The launch of the Israeli attack on 27 December led to the destruction of more than 20 000 homes, 37 holy places and three schools run by UNRWA. One hospital was destroyed and two others were hit. In addition, 11 ambulances were destroyed, 27 medics were killed and the list goes on. If Gaza had the population of Europe, that would translate into 500 000 killed in 22 days and more than 2 million wounded. This is a genocide.

      I expect an independent commission to investigate those murders and to bring those who are responsible to account. In the past, Israel has been very happy to be above the law. It committed a crime in 2002 in Jenin camp. It did not even allow the commission appointed by the UN, headed by the former President of Finland, Mr Ahtisaari, to go into the country to do its job. It committed another crime in 1996 in Qana. It committed another in 1982 in Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon. Everyone remembers that. The list goes on. This time, Israel should feel the heat of the international community, which must not tolerate or condone the crimes committed against civilians.

The stories of those who have been killed are too tragic to recount. The message that I and my colleague in the Palestinian delegation would like to send to your august body is that we expect this body to establish a monitoring process to see whether Israel has, as an Observer member, been observing its obligations and the values and standards of the Council of Europe.

      But there is another message, from the living in Gaza. Perhaps some Israeli apologists will say that there were thousands of rocket attacks, but these home-made rockets have no influence and pose no threat. Of course we do not condone or tolerate the firing of those rockets. We care about every drop of blood, be it shed by a Palestinian or an Israeli. But the total Israeli casualties from those rockets in the past seven years, as accounted for by former President Carter, is three. Although Israel and its apologists claim that thousands of rockets were fired in the 22 days of this war, Israel admitted that there were only three casualties from them. During the six-month truce from 19 June to 19 December, the Israeli Defence Minister himself admitted, more than once, that the ceasefire was holding and was respected on the Palestinian side. But during that period, 50 Palestinians were killed, 28 on the West Bank and 22 in Gaza, and 307 were wounded, 245 on the West Bank and 62 in Gaza, while the number of Israelis killed or wounded was 15.

      Israel's disproportionate reaction has a political message and a political goal, which is not really about bringing security or safety to the Israelis, because I do not believe that Israel is more secure than before. The message from the living Palestinians is that the peace process has to be supported and worked for. Israel should not be let off the hook, 14 months after Annapolis, at which the international consensus was to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, with the establishment of a Palestinian state. The negotiations did not produce one tangible result towards those goals.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Abdullah, please finish.

      Mr ABDULLAH (Palestinian Legislative Council). – Without peace, we cannot have stability and safety in that part of the world. If we are genuinely interested in seeing that happen, Israel must abide by international law, respect human rights and implement United Nations resolutions and the agreements signed by both parties.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Cohen.

      Mr COHEN (Observer from Israel). – I have been fighting for peace in the Middle East since 1967. I have devoted my entire political career to promoting peace in our region, and for the last 10 years I have represented the Knesset in this respected Assembly. This is my last speech here, as in two weeks I shall retire from political life, so I am speaking today on behalf of myself, as well as the people of Israel.

      Yesterday, 27 January, we all commemorated the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. Holocaust memorial day must serve as a reminder to us all that our societies again face the threat of terror, hatred and anti-Semitism. These challenges in our region come from Iran, which is using its two arms – Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organisations – to try to wipe Israel off the map. That is their goal. These organisations are not interested in the well-being of Palestinian women and children or in developing their education, economy or future. Those organisations consider their main objective to be the destruction of Israel. That is what they want and they declare it clearly for everybody. They do not cover it up. They are ready to sacrifice their own people, as well as the lives of Israel civilians.

      Three and a half years ago, in the summer of 2005, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely. The Palestinians were given an historic opportunity to change their fate and turn Gaza into an economic and cultural miracle. Instead, Hamas seized control and turned Gaza into a den of terrorism. Since then, Hamas has deliberately fired at our civilians from its hide-outs among its own civilian population. Hamas is held up among women and children, in mosques and in hospitals, while hoping that Israel will respond, so that it can portray itself as a victim, which is in fact what has happened.

      In southern Israel, for eight years – not two years, but eight years – more than 1 million Israeli citizens, including children, women, the elderly and handicapped people, lived under the threat of Hamas attacks, until our patience dried up and we had to defend our citizens. Friends, we should not all look for the guilty, but seek the way towards a solution. The Palestinians are our neighbours; they are not our enemy. We truly want to build a stable peace between us. In order to achieve this better future and find the solution, we have to work with the legitimate Palestinian Government, to translate the idea of two states into a concrete peace treaty.

      Before finishing, I would like to remind the Chamber that the young Gilad Shalit, a 20-year-old Israeli, has been kept in captivity by Hamas for 950 days and nights. Neither his family nor any international humanitarian organisation has had any contact with him. I urge you to do your utmost to ensure his well-being and prompt release. Thank you for all your help in achieving peace in the Middle East.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Jacobsen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – It worries me that Mr Lindblad could speak for 10 minutes on behalf of the Council of Europe about Palestine and Israel without mentioning the word "occupation", because that is what this issue is all about. The UN has told the truth about that. However, I am glad that there are now such organisations in Israel as Peace Now, as well as the human rights organisation B'Tselem and many other organisations, which really work for peace and argue that Israel should go for peace.

      Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison, and bombing, killing and hurting people there is nothing but a war crime. Israel planned this attack for months, according to two Norwegian doctors in the Shifa hospital in Gaza. Those doctors had to work more as witnesses to the killing, because neither the international press nor humanitarian organisations were allowed access to Gaza. Those two doctors asked, "Where is the Red Cross? Where are the other humanitarian organisations? People are dying here. Thousands are injured. Who is addressing their basic needs?"

      The Norwegian authorities have been in contact with Hamas since it won the election, and why not? We know, especially here in the Council of Europe, that a legal and monitored election should be respected, at least until the next election, when someone else has the chance to take power.

We all know that Israel needs peace and security. Facilitation is necessary so that the Israelis have someone to talk to on the Palestinian side, instead of imprisoning half the Palestinian politicians. There is no one to talk to. We know that Mr Barghouti and others could be national symbols for the Palestinians, so there are people if Israel really wants to talk to them. Let us go for the 1967 borders, put an end to the occupation, withdraw the settlements, and for God's sake, stop the new settlements. Let us stop what is happening now in eastern Jerusalem, where people are getting kicked out of their houses. If we respect private property, why do we not stop that?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Haibach to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) said that although the timing of the debate was not very appropriate, it was taking place on an appropriate day. There had been many references throughout the day to identifying guilty parties. That was not easy to do. There could be circumstances under international law in which it would be defensible to build a hospital in disputed territory or fire rockets at such a hospital. There could even be circumstances in which it would be defensible to kill innocent civilians. But it was not easy to identify guilt under international law.

      There was no sense in building new settlements if there was agreement to the two state solution. However, the resistance to take part in dialogue where a country was under attack was understandable.

      There were a number of possibilities for reaching a resolution, as identified by Mr Lindblad. The United States of America was key to the process of reaching a resolution because of its influence over both Egypt and Israel. He, Mr Haibach, had visited Gaza and Israel and could say conclusively that the people there wanted peace. The main responsibility for achieving that peace lay with the politicians in the area. None the less, Europeans and the United States of America had to do all they could to help the parties to adopt a more enlightened approach.

      Palestine and Israel could not resolve issues around water and energy provision on their own. These were areas where Europe might be able to make a positive contribution to achieving a peace settlement.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Lord Tomlinson

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom). – The ceasefire was an essential precondition, a first step, towards resolving the political and human tragedy that is Gaza. Two imperatives immediately arose. One was the complete and speedy Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; the second was the total cessation of Hamas rocket fire on Israel. That must be followed as quickly as possible by adequate and speedy aid flows to Gaza, and an equally speedy halt to the flow of arms to Gaza. Both require international help to co-ordinate the efforts of aid and reconstruction and to ensure security by using all possible means to stop the flow of arms, including further down the supply chain.

      The reopening of the border crossing is vital; it should be undertaken on the basis of the 2005 agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. With that as a framework, border opening should be a prospect. However, failure to take such basic steps will not allow the environment to develop for the necessary progress on these delicate political issues for the attainment of the ultimate prize: a negotiated two-state solution with neighbours co-existing in peace.

      This Parliamentary Assembly must accept one thing: however passionately we feel, whatever our view on the legality and wisdom of the rocket attacks on Israel, whatever our view on the proportionality or otherwise of the Israeli response, whatever we believe ought to be the basis of recognition of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders, and whatever we believe to be the justified grievance of the Palestinians, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will not resolve those problems. That does not mean, however, that we have no role. I commend to the Assembly the work of the Sub-Committee on the Middle East of the Political Affairs Committee, which led to the creation of a tripartite interparliamentary forum. Interparliamentary dialogue is our strength. Discussion produced small ideas of interparliamentary collaboration and small confidence-building measures, but a peace process needs not only the assistance of the Quartet, the US and the Arab League, but the confidence-building measures that the Parliamentary Assembly is in a unique position to assist.

      My final comment is that Barack Obama has given a good lead by telling his diplomats to listen and not to try to dictate. We could undertake that role by producing a forum in which politicians can talk to each other and listen, and we can listen to their needs and try to assist in that process.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lebedev.

Mr LEBEDEV (Russian Federation) said that from the outset of the armed conflict in Gaza, the international community had focused on ending it. A crucial step had been the adoption of Resolution 1860 on 8 January 2009. This resolution had called for an immediate and reciprocal ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. It had not been possible to influence Hamas in order to stop the shelling of Israel.

The lifting of the blockade was necessary to avoid a humanitarian disaster but the ceasefire had to be followed by further, far-reaching efforts. These should include preventing a flow of arms into Gaza. Every effort had to be made to prevent conflict. A lasting, comprehensive settlement would help security in the region and would help global and European security as well.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Reimann.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that he was a former envoy to Gaza. During that time he had moved between Palestinian and Israeli areas. That had given him a special perspective on the present conflict. Both sides had made mistakes. The international community had also made mistakes. There were many unenforced United Nations resolutions. A high-ranking European Union delegation had gone to the affected area, as had a delegation from the Union for the Mediterranean led by President Sarkozy, and there had been competition between the groups.

      Members had expressed many pious platitudes. Israel should have opened the border to allow the evacuation of the wounded, and of women and children who could have gone to north Sinai. But Egypt had been very passive about that issue. Israel had over-reacted, but no one could deny its right to self-defence and it had been provoked by rocket fire from Hamas.

      This conflict had spanned 60 years and there had been other wars. That made it easy to be sceptical about the prospect of a peaceful future. If President Obama could not find a solution, the situation was likely to continue for many years.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Omelchenko.

      (Mrs Jazłowiecka, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig)

Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) said that they were once again discussing war, its consequences and how it could be prevented. There had been many Assembly decisions in the past 15 to 20 years about wars. It had become a custom to ignore United Nations resolutions and other international decisions. Hypocrisy was now common. There was a strong threat to the validity of resolutions of the United Nations and of the Council of Europe. Leading countries which were represented in the United Nations had their own interests in Palestine and Israel. The Unites States of America supported Israel and the Russian Federation supported Palestine. It was no surprise to see that Hamas recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Most Arab countries were on the side of Palestine but so was Iran. For a solution to be found, the United States and the Arab League would have to come together and the Council of Europe should play its part in achieving that aim.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pavlidis.

Mr PAVLIDIS (Greece) said that Mr Abdullah and Mr Cohen would have seen that the Assembly was aware of the situation and would also have noted the Assembly's hope that it would not be repeated. Mr Pavlidis said that that was why he had been given the job of ensuring tripartite discussions between the Knesset, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Council of Europe continued. Those discussions had started in Rhodes, and were a way for Israel and Palestine to talk to one another. Although at the beginning of the discussions they had had very different positions, they had eventually been able to agree a list of 18 out of 20 points. That was why the talks should continue.

      Along with Mr Reimann, he hoped that President Obama would be successful. But President Obama was not the only person who should be trying to help to resolve the situation. The Assembly would meet again in March 2009, and at that time they would have a clearer picture of what was happening in the region and how to move ahead. It was important to ensure that the ceasefire held.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I call Mr Bjørnstad.

Mr BJØRNSTAD (Norway). – Like many others, I have been both saddened and horrified by the war in Gaza. The human suffering has been terrible and unnecessary. Of course we condemn Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. Of course we accept Israel's right to protect itself and its citizens. What we do not understand or accept is the excessive and totally disproportionate use of force by Israel. The civilian population of Gaza has had to endure suffering in a manner that is in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. Denying them access to the press and to humanitarian organisations is utterly unacceptable.

Sadly, the war has taken us in only one direction – backwards. We are now further away from peace and a stable solution. That is bad news for the Palestinian population, and equally bad news for Israelis. The war has not made Israelis any safer, nor Hamas any weaker. The Palestinians in Gaza, living in dire conditions before the war, are now left with nothing. It is very depressing.

However, the international community cannot give up. We now face two main challenges: to secure a lasting ceasefire and provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, and to bring life back to the political process, leading up to a negotiated two-state solution. Negotiations must involve all parties to the conflict, and an international presence is needed. We should also ask ourselves, as colleague Tomlinson mentioned: has the Council of Europe something to offer to bring about dialogue?

The strategy going forward must be adapted to safeguard one Palestinian Authority and one Palestinian territory. Hamas must understand that it needs to commit itself to a political process. Norway supported the unity government in 2007 and believed that it should have been given a chance. That did not happen. Now, the Palestinian Authority must be the focal point for international funding efforts, and political support must be given to ensure Palestinian national unity. But Israel must also commit itself to making concessions. I remind the Assembly that the occupation is the basic cause of the conflict.

We will support Egypt and regional efforts to secure Palestinian reconciliation and unity. Let us hope that a revitalised US role in the region will be positive. It is our responsibility to fight for reconciliation and unity. The international community must put all its forces together to put a final end to the violence and to secure a peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the Bureau and the Assembly for deciding to have this debate. Unfortunately, Europe and the West have been silent on this tragic event. My country acted promptly when the war between Russia and Georgia occurred, as did European countries. However, we did not do the same thing in respect of Gaza. Bomb attacks, including phosphorus bombs, have caused the deaths of many people. Many of those were civilians, and most of those were children and women.

Everyone is only talking about the economic cost of the conflict in the Middle East. I attended a seminar in Geneva last week where I heard that the economic cost of the conflict is approaching US$12 trillion. We can estimate the cost of the bomb attacks on Gaza, but how can we estimate the cost of the death of children, women and other civilians? The declaration by the Council of Europe that the core values of its Assembly are not limited to the physical territories of its member states is important.

Finally, the ceasefire has been achieved, but that is not enough. Children and women are the vulnerable ones in Gaza. They are suffering because of the embargoes and restrictions. The borders are still closed. Many countries, such as my own, have tried to help, but people are still suffering. Unfortunately, the Israelis, and even Egypt, are not very helpful on that issue.

I have never thought that the bomb attacks by Hamas are right, but they cannot justify the deaths of civilians in Gaza. Let us be realistic about the peace. I do not agree with the policy of Hamas, but we cannot ignore Hamas if we are to achieve a long-lasting peace in the Middle East. Hamas was elected by the people. Like many other institutions, this Organisation observed the elections, which were fair and democratic. That does not mean that Hamas can continue its attacks, but to have peace in the Middle East, in Palestine and Israel, we must accept that Hamas is there. We have to be realistic.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I call Mr Johansson.

      Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden). – As we have heard, over a period of three weeks more than 1 300 Palestinians were killed, most of whom were civilians. More than 400 of them were children, and more than 4 000 were wounded. The number of Israeli casualties was fewer than 20. Look at those numbers, ladies and gentlemen, and ask yourselves whether that was a war or a massacre. Whole families have been wiped out when their houses collapsed on top of them. Children have been burned with white phosphorus bombs, and schools, hospitals and market places have been bombed with heavy artillery.

The Israelis argued that they were defending themselves from rocket attacks in Gaza. They have the right to defend themselves but they do not have the right to use violence on such a massive scale; they do not have the right to bomb UN schools and hospitals, parliamentary buildings or prisons; and they certainly do not have the right to use burning white phosphorous on civilians. I stress that 1 300 Palestinians and fewer than 20 Israeli soldiers lost the most precious gift they had – their lives. They were the losers. The winners were the fundamentalists on both sides.

All over the Arab world, religious fundamentalists now benefit from the Gaza attack. In Israel, the right-wing opposition leader can now say that he was right: that there is no alternative to violence. He has already called for more violence and more illegal settlements on the occupied territory. The voices in Israel that used to speak for peace are now silent.

Of the 1 300 Palestinians who were killed, more than 400 were children. No nation should be allowed to act like that in the eyes of the international community without facing legal consequences. The Prime Minister of Israel promised his soldiers that they would never have to face an international war crime tribunal, whatever they had done. That is not a promise that he can make. That issue is in the hands of the United Nations. War crimes must be tried in a court of law. If no war crimes were committed, Israel has nothing to fear from an international tribunal. If it rejects such a court, the international community must conclude that war crimes were indeed committed. We should then ask ourselves whether Israel should have observers in this Assembly. There is no military solution to the Middle East conflict. Israel must leave the occupied territories, Israel's legitimate borders must be respected by all nations and military groups and the Palestinians must have a state of their own: that is the vision.

However, that can be realised only by negotiation. In such negotiations, all parts of the conflict must be recognised. The international community should also talk to Hamas not because we like it or share its values – we do not – but because it has its finger on the trigger. If the international community refuses to talk to people who have their finger on the trigger and who can end the rocket attacks on Israel, there can never be peace. I hope with the new US administration and the EU will take a more constructive approach. If they do not, I fear that the peace process can never be restarted.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am closely linked in my views and advice on this matter – if any of us have the right to give advice – to my colleague Lord Tomlinson, whose contribution was helpful, purposeful and to the point.

You would have to be living in complete denial if you did not believe that what Israel has done over the past few weeks was not only wrong but evil and as close as it gets to being a crime against humanity and therefore a war crime. The attack was carried out in the most cynical way by an Israeli government that was facing an election and was unpopular in the polls but which was trying to do something about it by acting tough. George Bush, the born-again Christian and saviour of the world, was about to leave office and his puppy-dog Blair, Bush's able assistant, was in the background but doing nothing. Those two were ably supported by the cocky kangaroo – the former Australian Prime Minister. They dragged us into a war in Iraq. Bush has done more to alienate the Islamic world against the rest of us than anyone else.

What did Israel choose to do? Its government, during the last few weeks of the Bush Administration and with the acquiescence of the Americans, chose to attack Gaza on the pretext that it was doing so because of missile attacks. We heard from Mr Cohen and many others that those missile attacks had been going on for ages, so why attack now? The cynical view is that it acted then because it needed support at home to win an election and stay in government and it knew that the Americans would do nothing – the bankrupt Bush administration was sitting on the sideline packing its bags and eagerly waiting to get back to Texas.

What were we left with? The facts are that thousands of people were injured, more than 1 000 were killed – including 300-plus children – and 80% of the water supply was destroyed, leaving the water undrinkable. The "humanitarian" Israeli government refused to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza until it had to; it did not introduce three-hour ceasefires until pressure started to be exercised.

Where were our governments on all this? When did they speak up for the people of Gaza and against the atrocities that were being committed in the name of fighting terrorism? They were silent. When truth gives way to silence, something is being hidden. This Organisation has a duty to look very carefully at what happened and to bring to book those who are responsible. No one has sympathy for anyone who attacks anybody else with terrorism. I have lived half my life under the threat of terrorism from Northern Ireland. Many of the bombs were very close to where I lived and worked. I know only too well of the evils of terrorism. Hamas is no friend of democracy but it will have to be spoken to in the end, as we had to speak to the IRA. I am sure that some time, somehow, we will have to speak to Hamas. If we do not do that, we will deny the reality that the person who holds the gun is the person who pulls the trigger. If you cannot talk to such people, no one else will be able to stop the process.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, but he is not here. I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – My father-in-law was Jewish; he was born in Britain into a family that had lived in Britain for several generations. He fought in the Second World War against fascism and he was a great supporter of Israel – he was a Zionist. If he were alive today and present in the Chamber, he would tell us that he did not do all that so that children could die from white phosphorous burns in the Gaza Strip. He was a great humanitarian and a very proud Jew.

Gaza is one of the poorest and most densely populated places on earth. For the past two years, the blockade and the previous Israeli strikes disrupted electricity supplies and access to clean water. Before the current attack, Gaza's health system was very near to collapse. Hospitals are short of medicines, blood and essential equipment, and only half of Gaza's 58 ambulances – a meagre number – are still functioning.

The announcement of the ceasefire and the role played by the international community, and by Egypt in particular, are very welcome. However, for the ceasefire to succeed and to last, the focus must be on more immediate access to humanitarian aid and on reconstruction, including the removal of unexploded bombs. Access for humanitarian agencies will continue to be a major challenge unless we – by which I mean the international community and us in this Chamber – can ensure full and safe access to provide help to those who need it.

A needs assessment must be carried out urgently. The UK government will work closely with its partners to achieve that. Unless we improve living conditions in Gaza, we will get nowhere. That is fundamental to any sustainable ceasefire. The UK will continue to provide technical and financial assistance and has pledged £27 million in aid in response to the crisis; other governments are taking similar action. We must ensure that promised aid is not just talk and that it is delivered on the ground. The UK is also looking to redeploy naval resources to help stop arms trafficking to Gaza and to provide monitoring support at crossing points.

      We urgently need all those crossings to be reopened. We have all seen women dying in childbirth in Gaza at those crossings because of the lack of medical attention. That is obscene, no matter where it happens.

We need to work on the prevention of arms smuggling into Gaza as well. I believe that the ceasefire should be followed by an embargo on the supply of military equipment to both sides. At the very least, the international community must assert unambiguously that there is no military route to peace in the Middle East. It must redouble its efforts to create a secure and independent state for the Palestinians alongside a secure and independent state for the Israelis. It is a basic human right to live without fear. Unless we make that happen in the Middle East, none of us will be able to do that.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France). – compared the situation in the Middle East to that of Sisyphus, in the Greek myth, who was condemned to spending eternity rolling a stone up a hill, only to have it slip out of his grasp every time he neared the top. In the same way, the conflict in the Middle East had imperiled peace in the world for decades. Now the world was once more faced with television images of deaths, destruction, and misery. It would not be right, however, to succumb to fatalism. After all, the mission of the Council of Europe was to overcome conflict, and to create and preserve peace, as had happened in Europe. The Council had already used those powers which it had to respond to the conflict between Georgia and Russia. It must also respond to that in Gaza. The withdrawal from the Gaza strip had to be maintained. Europe, and in particular President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, had promoted dialogue.

A lasting ceasefire would require humanitarian aid for suffering civilians. Destroyed buildings and infrastructure must be rebuilt. The Council of Europe had a long tradition of responding to urgent need caused by natural disasters, and also by war, under the auspices of the Council of Europe Development Bank. That financial arm of the Council was one of the oldest institutions of its kind in the world. Nowadays, it tended to focus its efforts on Council of Europe member states. This ought to be extended. Support should be offered to those elsewhere who had suffered as a result of wars, helping to relieve the consequent poverty. This could be a practical contribution to reducing tension in the Middle East.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I now call Mr Açikgöz.

      Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – I am sorry that the reaction from the international community has been too late, too little and too slow. As a result of the military operations of Israel, at least 1 400 Palestinians have died and more than 6 000 Palestinians have been injured. Casualties and damage in Gaza are very high and reliable figures are hard to obtain.

      The humanitarian situation is grim and miserable and apparently will be dire for some time to come. At present, most of the population is getting intermittent electricity and power cuts continue in many parts. Hospitals that are still open are struggling to function under frequent and long power cuts, while their emergency rooms and intensive care units are overwhelmed. Some others have already closed due to damage from shelling. In most instances, it still takes hours before the ambulances can reach the hospitals.

Around 400 000 people have no access to running water. Sewage has been flooding the streets in several locations. Although security is improving, much of the food in warehouses remains inaccessible – most mills and bakeries have stopped working. Around 100 000 people have left their homes, and over 46 000 remain in UN emergency shelters. The people of Gaza have suffered much and for so long and now it is time for healing wounds.

      We must now ensure that the ceasefire is durable and fully respected, enabling the full implementation of the UN Resolution 1860. The UN resolution calls for an immediate and durable ceasefire, an end to arms trafficking into Gaza, the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, unimpeded provision of humanitarian aid, intra-Palestinian reconciliation and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We should all concentrate our efforts on the realisation of those objectives.

      In this respect, I should like to emphasise that the countries of the region must put their differences aside and concentrate their energies on achieving our common goals. Therefore, we should convene an international donors' conference that will address both the urgent humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza and the reconstruction of Gaza.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I now call Mrs Papadopoulos.

      Mrs PAPADOPOULOS (Cyprus). – When Hamas won the elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006, Israel used that as a pretext to impose a complete embargo on those territories, thus creating a terrible humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Unemployment and consequently poverty increased dramatically. The situation has become even worse, due to the recent bombardments on Gaza. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed or seriously injured, including a shocking number of women and children. Many homes were completely destroyed.

      Israel accuses Hamas of acts of terrorism, in excess of the liberation fight. Palestinians accuse Israel of imposing an inhuman embargo and of the bombardments, which undeniably exceed the right to self-defence. That was also acknowledged by the UN Secretary-General, when he recently visited Gaza. That disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israel against 1.5 million Palestinians led once again to bloodshed and desperation. The UN and the EU verbally condemned both the Israeli attacks and the rocket attacks by Hamas, in an effort to keep "equal distances". How one can do that, however, when examining so much bloodshed is a big question.

      The Israeli army should never have been left free to attack, without mercy, innocent civilians. The pretext of cracking down on terrorism by Hamas is not an excuse. Saying that, of course, I do not imply that I condone Hamas's attacks on Israel and the consequent casualties caused among Israelis. All kinds of attacks are rigorously condemned. We cannot overlook, however, the fact that Israel exceeded by far the limits of self-defence, and has severely violated basic human rights, including the inalienable right to life.

      As a parliamentarian from the last divided country in Europe, Cyprus, which was invaded by Turkish troops in 1974, I know first-hand, being a refugee myself, how unbearable is the suffering of refugees and of relatives of the missing and killed. No cause can ever justify the killing of civilians, especially children, and the mass destruction of houses and properties.

I therefore appeal most strongly, to both Israel and Hamas, to stop all hostilities immediately. I appeal to Israel to lift the embargo on Gaza and to the Palestinian leadership to intensify its efforts to curb terrorism. Human life should be protected at any cost. Equally, I strongly believe that this Assembly should do its utmost for the resumption of peace talks and the respect of fundamental human rights.

      The international community must immediately intensify its efforts, using the road map as a valid point of reference for the process of negotiating peace and the resumption of dialogue between the parties concerned. Let us not forget that bloodshed and misery can never lead to peace and stability, but only create a vicious circle, with catastrophic consequences. Human life is precious. Let us work together to find ways to protect it, by stopping occupation.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Rochebloine.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that, when he considered the painful question of the situation in the Gaza strip, he felt both a need for urgent action but also a level of powerlessness. What was happening in the Middle East was key to achieving peace and balance in that part of the world. The diplomatic efforts of Nicolas Sarkozy had led to the ceasefire but nothing under the surface had been resolved.

      The people of Israel were so weary of the offensive from Hamas that Israel's aggression could almost be seen as justifiable. He understood if Israel had a lack of will to enter into discussions. But it also had to be understood that the people of Gaza had voted for Hamas because that reflected their feelings about their own situation.

      It was only possible to solve the problem through dialogue. He saw a glimmer of possibility ahead but this presupposed that discussions would take place between the divided groups. It also presupposed more normal living conditions for Palestinians. The march to peace was a very long one.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) quoted the Spanish saying "no one is worth more than anyone else". This applied to the current situation. The primary reason why members were present today was to condemn recent events in the Middle East. It was unacceptable for a minority group to fire rockets and it was unacceptable for Israel to respond with aggression. The Council of Europe had moved into a new era. It was not sufficient to address conflicts through talk of democracy and the defence of human rights. Peace had to be secured. What was the point of having 20 parliamentarians and an ad hoc committee present in the Assembly? Members were in contact with many Palestinians and Israelis who had rejected aggression. These groups had to be brought together in a Council of Europe committee. Today was only the start of that process. It was better to debate the issue for an hour today rather than not at all. However, every time a crisis arose, the Council of Europe had to react as a whole and had to issue a more timely response.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Goldstein.

      Mr GOLDSTEIN (Observer from Canada). – The pictures of death, injury and destruction in the Middle East can do nothing but elicit sympathy and a feeling of helplessness among the people who see them. Any death or human suffering diminishes us all. Unfortunately, there are many victims, both Israeli and Palestinian.

      One of the victims – perhaps the first victim – is truth. It is not true that Israel merely attacked Gaza. It is true that Hamas has rained 6 200 rockets on defenceless Israeli citizens, with the specific and declared intent of injuring, maiming and killing them, since 2002. Indeed, 3 200 rockets were aimed at Israel in the past year alone.

      It is not true that Palestinians in Gaza are the innocent victims of Israeli attacks. It is true that, standing in the war-torn Gaza Strip on Monday, the European Union's foreign aid chief and former Foreign Minister of Belgium, Louis Michel, condemned Hamas for acting like a terrorist movement. He accused Hamas of having "enormous responsibility" for the destruction. Mr Michel said: "Hamas has an enormous responsibility for what happened here in Gaza". Hamas used civilians as human shields. Hamas sent rocket fire from near, behind and beside mosques, schools, hospitals and United Nations installations. The rocket fire was not defensive, it was not meant to deter anything; it was meant to kill, it was meant to maim. That is the truth.

This body, this shrine of human rights, was devastatingly silent for six years while Hamas systematically tried to kill Israelis. I suggest to you, colleagues, that that silence may deprive this body of any moral right to be critical of Israel.

That silence underscores another truth that this body, among many others, holds a double standard: one for Israel and one for others. Having said that, ascribing blame, as many speakers have said, does not serve a useful purpose. Helping to find solutions is more useful. To create an atmosphere for that purpose, we need to define the terms that we use to ensure that they evoke the same meaning for all parties. The term "occupation" or "occupied territories" means different things to different people. Gaza is not occupied. Israel left Gaza in 2005, and there is not a single Israeli on the soil of Gaza today. When Hamas uses the term "occupation", it cannot refer to Gaza, because Gaza is unoccupied. Rather, it means all the territory that constitutes the state of Israel. When Hamas speaks of ending the occupation, it really speaks of destroying Israel, a philosophy shared, as we know, by Hamas's Iranian mentors and supporters.

Having said all that, the reality is that the Council of Europe has a role to play and should play it now. The role it should play is that which has been set out in the Security Council resolution, which would stop the flow of arms to Hamas, stop Hamas from indiscriminately attacking, allow humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, and force an ongoing ceasefire.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Vareikis, Mr Markov and Mrs Blanco Terán are not here, so I call Mrs Memecan.

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I would like to ask the same question that my colleague, Corien Jonker, asked on the issue of Russia and Georgia this morning. Was it worth it? I would also like to ask a few questions of my own. Was it worth thousands of precious lives? Are the Israeli people safer and happier now? Is there more hope now to sustain peace in the region? Unfortunately, the answers to most of those questions are in the negative.

Israel recklessly attacked Gaza, killed civilians including innocent women and hundreds of innocent children, disabled thousands of people and destroyed their living spaces. After all that killing, life in Gaza is no better. The decisions and violent actions of the Israeli Government should be condemned. The elected government of Hamas, regardless of its reasoning and regardless of the number of lives claimed by their continued rocket attacks, should be condemned. Hamas must decide whether it wants to be in the political arena or to continue with terrorist activities. It is time that it was recognised that divided leadership is not helping the Palestinian people.

The inhuman embargo with which Gazans have had to live and still have to live is beyond comprehension. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, depriving humans of their basic needs and rights, and depriving them of dignity, is simply mean. The embargo should be condemned. I urge the international community to take immediate action to help in the delivery of humanitarian aid and in meeting the basic needs of Gazans. A comprehensive assessment of the ongoing dispute, and a simple road map for peace in the region, is a difficult task. However pessimistic it may look, however, we should all try to find sincere, objective responsible solutions for all people in the region to pursue their lives in peace. In this day and age, we should prove and insist that diplomacy can work. We should try to stop governments' leaders from resorting to violence and abusing innocent people for whatever reason they might find. Any violation of international norms should be clarified. We should make sure that such abuse never happens again.

I invite and urge the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Hammarberg, to be involved in the humanitarian aspects of this conflict too. I know that he makes a difference. I also want everyone to keep it in mind that the Israeli Government's decisions and actions are independent of the Jews around the world. We should be sensitive to the feelings and security of Jews living in our societies when reacting to the Israeli Government. We should not let anti-Semitic sentiment grow. We should take precautions in our societies so that Jews are not subject to such resentment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Cebeci

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – I condemn the timing of this discussion. I wonder how many of our friends who voted on Monday for the discussion to be at this hour are here right now. I do not believe that it was an innocent vote.

This is a current affairs debate, and look at how many of us are here. I have also heard that the press is protesting because it does not want to work after 7 o'clock. Mike Hancock raised another issue: how many of you were following the crisis – how many of you know when the Council of Europe officially reacted to Israel's attacks on Gaza? The attacks started on 26 and 27 December and the official reaction of the Council of Europe was on 5 January. Where was the Council of Europe?

I know that Israel's attack on Gaza was timely because of the Christmas break, but do not the people of Gaza deserve a prompter and more powerful response from our body? I am not questioning Israelis or even Hamas, because everyone knows who they are and what they do. However, we should question our Organisation and our governments. The Council of Europe is the school of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Those are its reasons for existence. I can think of no human right more sacred than the right to life. That right to life arises not just in relation to euthanasia or abortion but in the right not to be killed by shells, bombs and guns. My friends in the Group of the European People's Party, the Socialist Group, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the human rights organisations value the right to life more than anything but it took 22 days to stop the aggressor. Did not children, women and civilians in Gaza have that right to life when faced with the indiscriminate use of heavy weaponry and disproportionate use of force in a densely populated area?

When civilians went to schools for shelter and the school is bombed, when ambulances and hospitals are bombed, why is the reaction so silent? Yes, there is a double standard, but it favours Israel. I have not spoken to a single person who thought that the attacks made Israel, or Israeli citizens, much safer or Hamas weaker. However, we will see the results in the February elections, and that was the only intention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the last speaker today, Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom). – It is impossible not to feel enormous sympathy for the people of Gaza. Their suffering and the scale of the damage done to their environment, schools and hospitals have been well documented on our screens. It is difficult for anyone reasonably to think that Israel could not have made more effort to avoid civilian casualties, even if there was evidence, as Louis Michel agreed, that civilians were sometimes used as shields and that mosques and other areas were used as places from which Hamas fighters could fire.

      Even if we have enormous sympathy for the people of Gaza, we should have little or no sympathy for Hamas itself. It is an Islamist organisation with many extremist elements. The Foreign Minister of Egypt, for example, said of the Hamas rocket attacks: "You ignored our words. We have been urging you to renew the ceasefire with Israel, but you refused. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza." An adviser to President Abbas said: "The one responsible for the massacres is Hamas and not the Zionist entity…Hamas needs to stop treating the blood of Palestinians lightly." There should be a call for an inquiry, but the finger in many cases points to Hamas and its own extremist ideology.

      An enormous effort must now be made in reconstruction. Already, the people of the occupied territories and Gaza have more aid per head than any other part of the world and an enormous effort will be needed. It is good that Saudi Arabia has promised $1 billion. The longer term question is of how the international community will respond to the conflict. Clearly, there are enormous negative elements. In a few weeks' time, the Israel election may well return Mr Netanyahu, who is hardly likely to assist in the peace process. Equally, there are divisions in the Palestinian camp, which do not help in any way.

      The only solution is a two-state solution and the Arab peace deal that is on the table is being revisited. There cannot be any future stability if Israel's security is not assured. The question for us all now is whether we simply fold our arms or use this crisis and the appalling loss of life to challenge each of the international organisations. The only pleasant point on the horizon is that Bush is no longer there and that the new President, in his appointment of his advisers, promises at least some hope in what is a cloudy and appalling scenario.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Under Rule 52, I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers' list who have been present during the debate, but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

 Lascia il tuo commento