Middle East peace process

It is always a pleasure to periodically look forward to Israel's ambassador's interview in The Times.

It is not my intention to, in any way, dwell upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been going on far too long now.

As it is now typical of the outspoken ambassador, Ehud Gol seems to find pleasure to chastise Malta whenever the opportunity arises. This could be so due to the style of questions put forward by the interviewer.

Unless I missed out between the interview published on May 8 of last year and the last interview published on January 15 this year, it would seem that I am either missing some finer points or otherwise there seems to be lack of coherence between the two interviews, save of course that the ambassador has been faithfully reported or interpreted in both instances.

In the interview Mr Gol gave in May last year the impression was given that the ambassador "does not trust Europe in general, claiming the EU had often toed the Palestinian line". For fairness sake though, the ambassador did express in that same interview that "the key is Europe" in attaining a peaceful agreement in the Middle-East.

Hardly eight months later, in the interview published recently, Mr Gol suggests that "Malta ought to toe the EU line", while in a most diplomatic manner, being asked whether he still considers Malta to be sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, Mr Gol elucidates us readers of Malta's voting pattern at the United Nations, claiming that Malta voted five times against Israel in 2003 unlike the rest of the Europeans who chose to abstain and yet another two times last year - quote: "twice too many".

No reference was made as to which organs of the UN Malta cast its votes. What can be ascertained though is, to Mr Gol's credibility, that during the 58th General Assembly - Plenary, 2003, that is the year that Mr Gol referred to, Malta's voting pattern definitely followed the voting pattern of the majority of EU member states, with the exception of the Vote on the Work of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices.

True to say that in that particular instance Malta's vote was not consonant with the rest of the EU member states. For clarity's sake, with the exception of Malta, the rest of the EU member states neither approved nor disapproved of this resolution but chose to abstain.

Another instance whereby EU member states, namely Germany and the United Kingdom abstained, was during the Vote on Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights. This is not to say that Malta joined the EU last year and therefore when the votes were taken Malta had absolutely no obligation to follow EU voting patterns, much as some EU member states do not feel they should toe the Union's foreign policy all the time.

Irrespective of whether Mr Gol was referring to this 58th General Assembly is to an extent irrelevant, since in this instance, on the votes concerning Israel - 10 in all - Malta voted in line with most EU nations and this is an indication which runs contrary to the claims made by Mr Gol and which also goes on to prove that indeed Malta does toe the EU line.

I do sincerely hope that Mr Gol appreciates that Malta's vote is as valid as that of any other nation and ought to be respected as such. Thus to the question of whether Malta is entitled to have its own opinion, Mr Gol's reaction was somewhat irrational when he replied that if Malta wants to be involved in the process, Malta has to be balanced and change its pattern of voting against Israel.

Many a time claims have been made citing the United Nations as being biased and although I do not wish to enter into the merits of such claims, it would be worth noting that although the General Assembly's resolutions are not binding yet it would also be true to note that it is an important indicator of international opinion.

Therefore, I absolutely do not share Mr Gol's views when he stated, in his previous interview, that "in the last 10 years the UN has always toed the Arab line". Or is it the case that both the EU and the UN are biased against Israel?

Now that Israel has a newly formed coalition Parliament, and the Palestinians have a new President, the world at large eagerly awaits the reinvigorating of the road map.

Too many lives have been lost, dreams shattered and people made homeless, with no solution in sight. Both Israel and Palestine owe it to the world.