Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs George Vella yesterday criticised the European Union's pro-Isreali stand in the Middle East conflict and suggested a more proactive approach, saying Malta could have been more central in the peace talks and used its contacts more effectively.
As a country Malta had worked for Europe to better understand the Palestinian question and had been instrumental to increase dialogue between Europe and Arab countries on the initiative of Michael Frendo. There had also been the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and the setting up of an ad hoc committee on the Middle East.
As an EU member state, Malta's role was tied to EU policy. There was uniformity in EU countries with pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian lobbies. The pro-Israeli lobby was very strong in Europe, and it was unfortunate that funds to Hamas had been stopped before giving it a chance to see how it would govern after winning the elections.
Dr Vella vehemently condemned this, saying that Europe had not learned from what had happened in Algeria and had made the same mistake with Hamas. Over the years, with Gaza submitted to Israeli isolation, the EU had hardly condemned this with the exception of condemning the building of the dividing wall. Only declarations had been made.
When Gaza was being massacred, the EU had just condemned the action. It had done nothing in the face of allegations of Israeli abuse in Gaza. The EU had been ambiguous and diplomatically ineffective and had not managed to stop the Israeli attacks. It had not insisted on compensation from Israel for the war damage inflicted.
He said it was a shame that, when people in Gaza were being massacred, the EU Czech presidency had insisted on stronger relations with Israel.
Malta had never insisted that Israel honour the EU agreement. It had not insisted on the two-state solution, or the dismantling of Jewish settlements.
Dr Vella said Malta had been an accomplice when, on June 24, the EU had signed a memorandum of understanding to develop an increasingly-closer relationship with Israel to strengthen dialogue on employment opportunities. This when, in Gaza, 80 per cent of the workers were unemployed.
Malta should persuade EU fora to insist on proactive issues. As a civil society the Maltese were not sensitive and informed enough. When there was a need to give assistance, the Maltese were very generous, as evidenced last February in a one-off initiative in favour of the people of Gaza.
The Maltese needed to put more pressure on the government to follow the issues in the EU. There should be more parliamentary declarations on government action in the Middle East, he said.
The first initiatives on the Middle East had been taken by Labour governments. From the Nationalist side, former Foreign Minister and President Ċensu Tabone had been the first to show sympathy with the Palestinians. Malta's diplomatic relations with Israel and the Palestinians had always been correct. Malta had always been in favour of peace but never against Israel. Former President Guido de Marco had also visited Palestine.
Dr Vella said that, in 1997, he had held the Euro-Med Conference when Isreali Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister David Levy and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat had met for the first time.
He congratulated the government for opening diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv and Ramallah.
Earlier, Dr Vella said that there existed a quasi-unanimous agreement between the government and the opposition on the Middle East problem.
As a democratic people, the Maltese wanted to see peace and democracy in the region; as Catholics, they wanted political and social justice; as Mediterraneans, they wanted nothing to impinge on peace and stability in the region. As a former colony, Malta was sensitive to being ruled. The Maltese believed in human rights which were being broken continuously.
Instability in the region had had a great effect on life in general. Since 1948 it had shaken the Arab world. When Israel had occupied practically the whole of the region in the 1967 war, the trauma had become more pronounced. These events had been followed by hijackings and terrorist attacks and extremists groups like Hezbollah had become more active.
This state of affairs had culminated in the division of Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, which had hardly shown any cooperation between them to improve the situation.
The PL spokesman said the Middle East was characterised by other struggles, including Syria and Lebanon. There was still a pending issue over the Golan Heights, where Syria insisted that only if these were returned would it have a good relationship with Israel.
When Israel had attacked Lebanon, the EU had done nothing. Palestinians were given refuge in Jordan, even though sometimes it forced them out so that it would not get involved in their problems.
He also referred to the problem of an aggressive Iran, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did whatever pleased him. What would be the US reaction with regard to Iran's policy? Iran was obsessed with its nuclear policy, a situation which Israel objected to. The situation could result in a military conflict.
If the Palestinians were united and if there was a different attitude from the US and Israel with regard to Gaza and Palestine, prospects for peace in the region would surely improve.
Dr Vella said he had been struck by his visit to the Gaza Strip. It was heartbreaking to see vestiges of buildings destroyed by rockets, and people without basic facilities because someone had decided to bomb the area.
He unequivocally condemned the Hamas bombing of Israel, but equally unacceptable was the Israeli massacre of the Gazans. The report by the Arab states clearly stated that this went against the Geneva Convention and was a war crime, requesting an international legal investigation into the matter.
Dr Vella referred to a family from Zeituna, a region south of Gaza City, which had lost no less than 29 of its members during the massacre. Descriptions of the bombings were reminiscent of Nazi bombings.
However, the beauty of charity had shone through, he said, in the form of the hospital in Jordan which was providing local doctors to tend to the people of Gaza. Between 300 and 400 children had lost their lives during the massacre. Some 250,400 houses, as well as numerous schools and health centres, had been destroyed.
The economy in Gaza was at a standstill, as even funds allocated from beneficiaries in the Sharm El Sheikh meeting had been stopped, allowing in just enough to pay the wages.
Malta had always given material aid when needed, but it could also help by making its voice heard on a European level. Dr Vella said he followed EU reports, but rarely heard any declarations by Maltese representatives. He emphasised that he was not judging, but hoped this would lead to more active participation in such debates. At least then, Malta could say it had done its part.
Dr Vella said that parliamentarians should utilise their parliamentary diplomacy in the interests of peace, as it was easier for them to speak up than it was for governments. It was also important to educate the people on goings-on. Thanks to its neutrality status, Malta was still in time to bring together sections of Israel and Palestine, on parliamentary, civil and other levels. He praised the initiative of the French ambassador, One Voice, which had brought together performers from various religions in a truly touching performance.
The US's contribution to the development of the Middle East problem was undeniable, he said. While Jordan and Syria seemed to be improving, and Lebanon settling, the question was what Iraq would be doing, he said. The EU had to play a more decisive role.
For a solution, he said, Palestinians had to be granted their rights; Israel had a right to exist without being bombed, and there must be international pressure to free Gaza. Criminal procedures had to be started against those who had committed the Gaza war crimes, there had to be a constructive dialogue with Iran, and the US had to guarantee Israeli security. There should be an international conference on the creation of a Palestinian state, Jerusalem should be granted status, and Israel had to be given a clear message that it did not have a free hand to do as it wished. Fear of doing these things was not the route to peace, he said.