Israel/Gaza: Remarks by High Representative/Vice-president Josep Borrell to the press following the Ministerial meeting on “Implementing the Two-State Solution”
Remarks by EU Vice President Borrell
Thank you for being here, at a somewhat late hour. I wanted to comment to you, from my point of view, as an observer that I was today, at the meeting that took place, convened by the government of Spain.
I was on mission in the Middle East – yesterday I was in Beirut. Also visiting the United Nations mission in southern Lebanon, UNIFIL. Then (visiting) the authorities and (having) different meetings with Lebanese civil society. Earlier I had been in Cairo, at the meeting of the Arab League ministers.
I came to Madrid, but tomorrow I am going back to the Middle East, to the (United Arab) Emirates. After having participated as an observer in this meeting – convened by the Spanish government – and I want to thank the Spanish government for the effort it is making to promote the peace process in the Middle East, based on the two-state solution.
I have been an observer on behalf of the European Union. As you know, the European Union has different positions on this point. Whether or not to recognize Palestine as a state is a national prerogative of the member states. Some have done so, others have not.
Undoubtedly, there is unanimity in the Union on the need to support the solution based on the construction of the Palestinian State. The State of Israel already exists, it is a democratic State, powerful – economically speaking – with a very important military capacity.
Today’s meeting serves to keep alive the prospect of such a solution. But for that to happen, many steps must first be taken. In the first place, the cease-fire, which continues to be negotiated interminably. If not today, it will be tomorrow. And not tomorrow either, (but) the day after. We will see. There is little hope that it can be achieved in the short term, according to the information I have.
But that does not prevent us from continuing to work to achieve, first, to bring aid to the people in Gaza, and to continue to demand the release of the hostages. But to continue also to have a political solution in perspective. Although it is clear and evident that the government – this government of Israel – rejects it.
We have to build as much international consensus as possible. This morning there was a very interesting exchange of views, first with the Prime Minister and then among the ministers.
As I was telling you, tomorrow I will go to the Emirates (United Arab Emirates), which was not present at today’s meeting – neither was I in Cairo, at the Arab League meeting – and then in New York, at the meeting that we are planning together with Norway, in the framework of the United Nations General Assembly.
I think everybody knows: we are living in the Middle East a situation on the edge of a problem, I would not say much more serious, because what there is is already serious enough. The situation in Gaza is already serious enough not to think that someone else can do more, but regional spillover is still a possibility.
We begin by strongly condemning the Hamas terrorist attack. We have to remember that whenever we take the floor to say it again. But then what is happening in Gaza is a horror that is not justified by the horror that Hamas previously provoked; that horror does not justify another.
I have been to a closed border post at Rafah, where we are negotiating the possibility of opening it with a presence of the mission that we have had stationed at the border for more than 20 years.
It’s one thing to be told, it’s another thing to see it. It’s one thing to be told that there are a lot of trucks waiting and it’s another thing to see the endless line of more than 1400 trucks – 1400 trucks on both sides of the road waiting to get in and sometimes waiting for weeks.
It’s one thing to be told that, it’s another thing to see the warehouses full of the products rejected at the border control, among which there is everything. Yes, it is frankly shocking to see mountains of boxes of different kinds of material. Some have come from Singapore, others from Brazil, others from Norway, from European countries. Where there is everything, where there are medical first aid boxes that are rejected because inside there are those little scissors that are used in pharmacies to cut the adhesive tape. Even water purification systems that are rejected because there are carbons inside – and of course, how can water be purified without carbon? Even sleeping bags that are rejected because they are green – green, apparently, can be considered as a material for military use.
You see boxes and boxes of the stuff that is dramatically lacking for those a few miles away. And yet they are held back after a long journey and a long wait.
We have condemned recent attacks in so-called “safe zones.” Which then, at the moment of truth, are not, with an absolutely unjustified number of civilian casualties.
In Lebanon, as in the West Bank, there is today the fear that there will be an even greater pressure that will generate a new emigration of Palestinians – forced migration, of course – both in the West Bank and in the Sinai.
That is the situation. Today’s meeting was, I think, important in preparation for the UN meeting.
Once again, from an observer position, (since) I did not take part, I neither approved nor rejected the final statement of the meeting because, as I tell you, there are different positions within the Union, even if we are all in favor of the two-state solution.
The problem is not being in favor of a solution, but what to do to achieve it. For this, there are different actions that I had the opportunity to discuss with the Arab ministers at their ministerial meeting in Cairo.
I remain at your disposal in case I can answer some of your questions.
Q&A
Q: I don’t know if you think there should be some specific actors participating in this (United Nations) meeting. What international actors do you think should be at the table? A couple of hours ago, the Israeli foreign minister posted a message on social media accusing you that your legacy is going to be anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. I don’t know how you feel about that, in the framework that we’re in now. And if I may, a third one. I don’t know if on your visit to Madrid you had the intention or the opportunity to meet with Mr. Edmundo Gonzalez or if you have in the future and intention or want to seek the opportunity to meet with him.
Q: I would like to ask you about whether the Maduro regime can be described as a dictatorship following Mrs. Robles’ comment.
Q: I would also like to ask you about Venezuela, what do you think about the proposal of the European People’s Party for the European Parliament to recognize Edmundo Gonzalez as president?
Well, I see that the situation in the Middle East is less topical than the discussion on Venezuela – which is also going to be discussed in the European Parliament next week.
Let’s talk first about the issues of today’s meeting. Actually, I believe that the problem does not affect only Arabs and Europeans. It is a problem that affects the whole world. Although for historical reasons, naturally the Arab neighbors in the Middle East, well, they have been more affected. (Historical and factual reasons because they have received the largest number of Palestinian refugees. I think we must also overcome the fact that the contact groups are between one geographical area and another. It would be good – and this will surely be debated at the United Nations – to incorporate into any contact group actors that represent international concern, (that) there is a problem.
Why not countries like Chile, which has a large colony, or like Canada, which also has a large Palestinian colony – and which have taken important decisions. Canada has banned arms exports and Israel. Chile’s positions – you know them – are, as they have already been very strong from the point of view of respect for human rights. So, yes, I think we have to overcome a little bit (the division between) Europeans and Arabs, and perhaps also the United States. You have to open the contact group to more international actors.
Second, (about) Twitter (and) the Israeli minister. Well, what I would like to say is that we don’t care about Iran, either the Minister is not well informed or he doesn’t care about not being well informed. Just last week we proposed – and it is proposed to the Council – the Council is going to discuss – an additional proposal for sanctions on Iran. In the same way that he regrets that he did not take the initiative – I hope that this press will help him to be a little better informed. I insist, whether he cares about being well informed or he doesn’t care.
Secondly, Kissinger – who had some experience in discussions about the Middle East and who was also a Jew – used to say that as soon as you argued with the Israeli government of the day and you did not agree 90% with its positions, you were immediately accused of anti-Semitism.
That word should not be devalued. There are in history, unfortunately, manifestations of what it means to be anti-Semitic, and I believe that one should not play with big words that have had a tragic dimension in history. To accuse anyone who disagrees with the position of a government of being anti-Semitic makes no sense.
I am repulsed by anti-Semitism. The Jewish people have obviously been subjected to persecutions and sufferings that everyone knows and recognizes. I am the first. Therefore, I am not going to bother to refute these kinds of qualifications that fall under their own weight. I am going to do everything I can to ensure that the Association Council, which is scheduled, is held. I just want to point out that this thing that says I don’t care about Iran also falls apart and you should know that.
The second (question) was already about Venezuela. I will gladly meet with Edmundo González. Unfortunately, I am leaving tomorrow for the Emirates (United Arab Emirates) and I will not have the opportunity, but I have been in permanent contact with Mr. Gonzalez. With the candidate that we believe – in the light of the only information available, which is the one provided by the Venezuelan opposition, but that the United Nations observers themselves recognize its verisimilitude. (They) recognize that, obviously, to the extent that they describe the reality that they have been able to measure the elections, Maduro has not won them. Therefore, I have already said it: we do not recognize Maduro’s democratic legitimacy because we do not recognize that he won the elections.
Q. The first one is about the UN actors. The second one was about the Israeli newspaper and the third one is about the interview with Mr. Edmundo Gonzalez – if it was possible, if there was a future.
I would have no problem finding him. Hours before he left Venezuela I was at the Ambrosetti Forum in Italy, I was talking to him, and he already told me the situation he was in. I have spoken with him and we have invited him to come to the Foreign Affairs Council. Naturally we are going to continue to maintain with him and with the opposition that has remained in Venezuela – we must not forget that there are people in Venezuela who need our support and who are in a complicated situation – to the extent that the Maduro regime – I suppose that tomorrow they will also call me in some way, it does not matter – is engaged in a repressive dynamic that worries us all, and which can only be overcome through international pressure and in particular that which can be done by the Latin American countries that are closest to us.
I have also been asked about the statements made by a minister and other ministers. I am not going to comment on the statements made by the ministers of a country, even if it is my own. I am Spanish and naturally I follow Spanish politics, but I do not think it is my role to comment on the statements of one or the other. What is clear is that these elections have shown that the democratic quality of Venezuela, which we already knew before, has not improved.
The third issue is the question of the Popular Party to recognize Edmundo (Gonzalez). Look, in international law what is recognized are States. The existence of a State is recognized. For example, Kosovo is not recognized or is recognized. Kosovo, the State of Kosovo. The government in power in Kosovo is not recognized or is not recognized. In international law, a State is recognized. When it was the procés, and Catalonia tried to achieve independence outside the Constitution, the big question was whether this independent Catalonia would be recognized as an independent State. Not whether or not you recognized the president of the Generalitat, but an independent State. The case of Kosovo: some recognize it and others do not recognize it.
Venezuela is a recognized state. It sits in the United Nations. We continue to recognize the State of Venezuela, but we do not recognize the democratic legitimacy of those who say they have won the elections without proving it. In any case, recognition or non-recognition is a national power of the Member States. The European Union neither recognizes nor fails to recognize Kosovo because it does not have the capacity in international law. The Member States have it and some use it in one sense and others use it in another. But even if I wanted to, I could not recognize or not recognize a state. And to recognize or not to recognize a president of the government. What is done is to recognize or not to recognize the democratic legitimacy of the one who holds power, the territorial control of the army, of the police. That, in fact, was Maduro before the elections and continues to be Maduro after the elections. But we do not consider him a person who can claim democratic legitimacy to the power he holds.
Unfortunately I cannot be in Strasbourg because I could not be in two different places at the same time. I believe that at this moment the commitments I had made in the dialogue on the situation in the Middle East could no longer be modified. Surely there will be more occasions to discuss that in the coming days. In any case, unfortunately, there are no magic wands in these matters. As the spokeswoman of the Socialist Party said in a recent debate in Parliament, acknowledgements may have a symbolic value, but unfortunately they do not change reality. I do not know if I have made myself clear. Governments are not recognized, States are recognized. It is the States that can do it. It is the States that recognize other States and we do not recognize them. We, the European Union, do not recognize the democratic legitimacy of Maduro.
Q. I wanted to ask you what plans you have for the reactivation of the mission (EUBAM Rafah), and if you are considering, a new, strengthened mandate. I remember that one of the big problems we had then is that it was a non-executive mandate – we were mere observers. Also, our security forces could not be armed. So, in the hypothetical case/incident we had to get in the armored cars and run away. In this case of a new EUBAM Rafah, what would be a bit of a mandate? Also ask him about the security of the Philadelphi corridor, something Prime Minister Netanyahu is constantly claiming. That they don’t want to somehow delegate the security of the corridor because of the problem of the tunnels and the possibility of new smuggling of weapons, ammunition, explosives. The possibility of a multinational military force has been considered and perhaps you could also comment a little on what hypotheses are being considered, if it would be under NATO mandate. There are European countries willing to contribute troops, Arab countries, friends of Israel that also seem to be offering.
Well, if you were there when EUBAM Rafah was created, you know what the rules of the game are. It’s a non-executive mission, like (almost) all of our missions. I think only an executive mission in Kosovo. Sorry, not in Kosovo, it’s in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even the missions in the Sahel didn’t have the executive character. Executive in the sense of UN terminology, which means being able to go into combat. They are not, and (EUBAM) Rafah was not. And it’s going to continue not to be. We’re not going to change the nature of the mission.
On the other hand, unfortunately we are not close, if not far away, from getting an agreement that would allow this mission to be deployed again. It was deployed in its observer and advisory capacity, and we had to withdraw it. I am willing to assume the responsibility of sending my people again, but it has to be with guaranteed security conditions and with acceptable political conditions.
That means an agreement that allows the Palestinian Authority to be our interlocutor on the ground. At the moment, neither of these two things has been achieved. Therefore, the mission cannot be deployed for the time being. It would be a non-executive mission, an observation and support mission, but that means that the Palestinian Authority has to be there. You will remember if you were there, that Egypt said “that goes with you on the Gaza side. On the Egyptian side I don’t need you and you don’t deploy.” That is still the case. It would have to be deployed on the other side, but with what interlocutor and under what security conditions? I don’t think that’s going to be for tomorrow. Which is all the more unfortunate because the border is going to remain closed. When one goes there and sees the line of ambulances from the (International Red Crescent Movement) waiting to evacuate people who cannot cross the border, with seriously wounded, one can only regret it. To consider that the situation of blockade at the border is not admissible, but it is what it is.
You asked me about an international mission. There has been a lot of talk about it. Almost all the news I have heard is unfounded. As far as I know, there is no Arab country that has offered the presence of its troops. (There are) some exceptions, but under conditions that are far from being met. The same goes for the European Union. This does not mean that a solution should not be sought to stabilize the situation in Gaza.
Today at the moment Gaza is a lawless and lawless area with desperate people. One of the reasons why the United Nations is having serious difficulties is because there is no interlocutor and no one to guarantee security internally. First, a cease-fire has to be achieved. As long as there is no ceasefire, everything else is just talk for the sake of talk.
Thank you very much.
