Malta could not pretend to be the centre of the world, capable of solving all problems, but neither should it withdraw into a corner and become irrelevant, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg told Parliament yesterday.
Winding up a one-sitting debate on the Middle East conflict, he said the opening of Malta's mission in Tel Aviv and Ramallah had shown Malta's intention to observe, comment and keep contacts with both sides on developments.
The discussion had shown that both sides of the House were largely in agreement. As a former colonial possession, the Maltese knew what it meant to be like an exile in one's own state. Malta had always condemned rocket attacks by Hamas, but the disproportionate reaction by Israel, with the death of so many civilians, was wrong too.
Jerusalem papers had reported the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malta, which was among the most critical of Israel in Palestinian affairs. Dr Borg said he had not been displeased with this, because it clearly showed Malta's stance.
For the first time on record he said that Malta had taken the lead and questioned it when the new Israeli government had started throwing doubts on the two-state solution. Malta could not accept as if nothing was happening, when even Iran had accepted the two-state solution. The EU itself had started a movement for calm and a wait-and-see attitude.
It would be wrong to think Malta had done nothing at EU level. Malta had made it clear that the French proposal of enhancement must be parallel with real progress on the ground.
Dr Borg agreed with Dr Vella's assessment that if things did not change soon and there was no new ray of hope, there would be great unrest within the year. This was borne out by the frustration that could be badly felt in the occupied territories.
He expressed the hope that every country's foreign minister would visit Israel and the occupied territories to see the evident injustice of the situation. Forty years ago public opinion had been more in favour of Israel as the side under aggression, but the balance of public perception had since swung in favour of the Palestinian people.
The 640 checkpoints in the occupied lands were unjust and humiliating. They could yet be torn down, but the settlements were much more difficult to do away with and complicated the peace process. The situation on the West Bank had to be seen to be believed. The government had been wise not to open its mission in the contentious city of Jerusalem, and opted for Tel Aviv.
Dr Borg said he did not believe beating around the bush. It was good that Prime Minister Netanyahu had first mentioned the two-state solution; it was a positive development but one that must not be equivocal. How could an independent state not have its own armed forces or control of own airspace?
When Palestinian President Mahmooud Abbas had visited Malta he had been seen as moderate. If Israel could not make peace with him, one found it difficult to know with whom it could do so. He was ready to find a solution by guaranteeing Israel's security even with the involvement of the UN, the EU and the US. An independent Palestinian state would be the best guarantee of Israel's security.
Dr Borg said Malta had not only kept its position as the rapporteur on the Palestinian cause at the UN but also called a conference in June 2008. He had made it clear Malta would continue to be active, not only because of its 34 years as the rapporteur but also because it believed that its presence there meant that the committee would never be a platform against Israel.
In spite of its limitations, Malta was giving extensive help to the Palestinian cause. It had committed to US$1 million over three years, to hosting Palestinian police officers for training, and to sponsoring courses at Bethlehem University. All of this was highly appreciated.
The greatest complication in the Middle East was the fact that the Palestinians themselves were divided. It was important to know how and why Hamas had come into being, but it was just as important not to abandon the region's moderate forces. Every action such as the invasion of Gaza strengthened the region's extremist forces and undermined the power of President Abbas.
Dr Borg said the EU had a role to play, but it should not be alone in this. The pressure being brought to bear by the Obama administration could be very effective and could ensure some steps forward. He was very confident that rather than ignore the situation, the Obama administration was trying to get to grips with it, through various measures and indications. Even his hand of friendship to Islam was seen as a firm commitment, not a honeymoon attitude.
Concluding, Dr Borg said EU membership would not muzzle Malta. He firmly believed that in its smallness Malta could still influence the development of European politics, and it was already succeeding with its stance of being more impartial than ever. Compromises would still be necessary sometimes, but it was better to be criticised for being clear and admired and credible for calling a spade a spade.
Former Foreign Minister Michael Frendo, now Chairman of the European and Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced the debate, saying that both the government and the opposition were in agreement on Middle East issues.
These included the right of Israel and the Palestinians to co-exist as two sovereign states living in peace. There was no debate on the two-state solution also proposed by US President Barack Obama. The European Union also embraced this solution.
The current situation in the region, however, was not so simple. Israel was governed by a coalition of parties which did not accept the dismantling of present Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land. There was also a great divide between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Dr Frendo said that residents in Gaza were suffering heavily and were living in an open-air prison. They did not have access to the sea and to building materials.
It was a shame for civilisation that even food supplies entering Gaza were controlled. The international community should fight for people's rights and one should show solidarity with people living in Gaza.
The only hope for peace in the Middle East rested with President Obama, who had understood the need for peace in the region. Other factors influencing the region included Iran with its connections to Hamas and Hezbollah. The international community should support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with more investment, economic development and freedom of movement in the area.
Dr Frendo said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in a unique position to seek peace in the region. This position resulted from the Arab initiative that the state of Israel be recognised by all Arab states in exchange for giving up Palestinian land occupied since 1967.
Dr Jean Pierre Farrugia (PN) said that both Democratic and Republican US Presidents had worked for peace and stability in the region, with the latest initiative resting with former President Clinton. One major stumbling block was the Jewish settlements, the population of which, over the years, had increased from 240,000 to 500,000.
Dr Farrugia mentioned President Obama's speech at Cairo University last June, which clearly showed that US bias for Israel was at an end.
He said that in meetings with parliamentarians from Mediterranean and European countries it had been agreed that settlements should not be extended further. The Israeli Prime Minister had said in June that the present settlements should remain part of Israel and other lands given to Palestinians in exchange. Hamas had criticised this speech as being racist and President Abbas had said the speech dashed hopes of a settlement. But Kadima leader Tzipi Livni had said the speech was encouraging when the Likud could not accept the two-state stance.
The Israeli Cabinet had invited President Abbas for talks in last weekend's meeting. Abbas declared that talks could only take place if the 2003 roadmap was accepted.
Dr Farrugia quoted The Jerusalem Post and The Jordan Times to show the contrasting ways how they tackled the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He said the Jordan paper was much more balanced and rational towards accepting international arbitration on the issue.
As a key player in international politics, the EU should insist with the UN Security Council to negotiate peace when Arab countries showed they were trusting the US government at this moment in time.
EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana, in London, had also endorsed the two-state solution. Hamas could not be left out of the negotiations.
Concluding, Dr Farrugia said there was a sharp difference in the GDP per capita with $25,000 for an Israeli and $1,300 for a Palestinian. Peace in the region would bring peace, stability and economic development.
Charlò Bonnici (PN) said that a recent reference by a UN special representative to the Middle East becoming a threat to world peace had struck a chord with him. Good governance and political courage were essential for a Middle East solution.
Unfortunately, by time the issue had become more complicated. New forces with no link to any state, such as Al Qaeda, which supported terrorism, threatened long-held values like democracy.
Global issues, such as immigration and global warming, were fertile ground for fundamentalists and other ideologies to spread their beliefs.
Mr Bonnici said the new Obama administration was a breath of fresh air, as it seemed keen to work on a solution without further delay. The solution lay in setting up an international umbrella for negotiations with clearly-outlined aims and benchmarks. All parties had to be strongly committed, no matter what happened. President Obama's long-awaited speech at Cairo University emphasised the role everybody had to play.
Everyone had a duty to work towards the day when Israeli and Palestinian mothers could stop worrying about the safety and future of their children.
No vote was taken after the debate.
The House has risen for the summer recess and will meet again on September 28.