Translated from Spanish original – check against delivery!

Madame President, Honourable Members of the European Parliament, 

Tonight there will be a vote at the United Nations General Assembly, where the draft resolution on the situation in Gaza, put forward by the [United] Arab Emirates, with the support of some European countries, including Spain, the current holder of the rotating Presidency [of the Council of the European Union], will be discussed. This follows on from the letter of the United Nations Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres], in which for the first time for many years in the UN’s history, he invoked Article 99 of the Charter [of the United Nations], which allows him to draw the attention of the international community to a serious situation and a threat to peace taking place at a given time, in this case, the situation in Gaza. 

As you know, the European countries on the [UN] Security Council – France as a permanent member and Malta as a non-permanent member –voted in favour of the resolution, but it was vetoed by the United States. This means that the General Assembly will now have the opportunity to give its views on the matter. 

After yesterday’s debate in the EU Foreign Affairs Council, it seems to me that we will see a repeat of what has already happened, with some European countries voting in favour, some voting against and others abstaining. This no doubt reflects different perspectives and different assessments. It is also based on history in terms of the cultural and political legacy of history in each Member State as regards Israel and Palestine. 

But the reality is that the situation in Gaza is just getting worse and worse. You and I know, from the information that reaches us, how many civilians have been killed or injured. There are approximately 2 million people who have been displaced from their homes and who are trying to find shelter. According to the UN, however, there is no longer any shelter available, and it is about to terminate its activities in the area due to the lack of resources and lack of safety.

The German Foreign Minister [Annalena Baerbock] has pointed this out. The US Secretary of State [Antony Blinken] has also raised this issue, but the situation carries on.

We had thought and, at the G7, we had asked that Israel’s military activities in the south of Gaza not follow the same pattern as that in the north. Unfortunately, however, the pattern is the same, if not worse. There is no doubt that the level of destruction in Gaza has no precedent in history. If we compare it with what happened in German cities bombed during the Second World War, there are reports that have been published stating that the level of destruction in Gaza is greater than that which occurred in Dresden or Cologne and similar to that which occurred in Hamburg. Around two thirds of buildings and infrastructure have been destroyed.

Obviously we do not know the exact number of deaths, but according to some estimates, as many as 20 000 people may have been killed. And, as I have said on several occasions, this horror cannot be justified by the horror experienced on 7 October as a result of the Hamas terrorist attack on the kibbutzim near Gaza.

I can only advise you to read the letter from Philippe Lazzarini [Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)] of 7 December, with data that, unfortunately, is already out of date, setting out the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Nobody can explain the situation better than Lazzarini, Head of the UNWRA. Or read the article published today by Filippo Grandi [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] explaining the current situation.

In my opinion, there must be another way to combat Hamas. Morally, there must be an alternative that does not involve the deaths of so many innocent people, including so many children. 

There must be an alternative and, unfortunately, what we are witnessing is not something that we can justify from the point of view of the need to eradicate Hamas, given the high cost this is having in terms of human lives and destruction. Human lives are being lost not only as a result of the bombing, but also because of the living conditions caused by the Gaza blockade.

This is why the United Nations Secretary-General has raised his voice and invoked Article 99 of the Charter, which gives him the power to draw the international community’s attention to this situation and ask the Security Council to give its opinion.

One may agree or disagree with the content of this call from the UN Secretary-General, but one cannot argue that, in issuing it, the Secretary-General has become a threat to peace. Nor can he be reproached, or be deemed to be promoting the Hamas terrorist group. Such statements have been made; I reject them out of hand.

One can be for or against, one can vote for or against – and even within the European Union we are not unanimous in our views on this matter. But what one cannot do is discredit the UN Secretary-General, since that would mean discrediting the UN as a fundamental body that upholds or works for peace and stability in the world. Such attacks are thus completely unjustified and I consider it a matter of honour for Europe to defend the Secretary-General – even if not everyone agrees with what he is proposing. One may disagree, but one cannot discredit his actions.

We shall see who agrees and who disagrees, since there is to be a vote within the UN General Assembly. And since foreign policy continues to be a matter for the individual Member States and given that we have as yet no common position (not one that I have been able to establish, at least), we shall find out what stance each of those States has adopted. But the overriding concern is that the UN must be protected as a fundamental body within the multilateral system that we uphold and on the basis of which we intend to create a world from which force is banished as a method of conflict-resolution.

Yesterday we discussed all of this within the Foreign Affairs Council. We discussed how to set about not rebuilding Gaza (since Gaza has already been rebuilt several times) but creating political structures that will enable the Palestinian people to have their own state. We also discussed how to underpin peace and security. We discussed Israel’s security, which cannot be achieved by military means alone. It cannot be achieved solely through efforts to eradicate a terrorist group, which would result in thousands of civilian deaths. It cannot be achieved solely through the sowing of seeds of hatred to be nurtured by the combatants of the future – who will also have to be eliminated in an endless cycle of violence.  

We can never do enough to condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks. We do condemn them and we call for the hostages to be released. We have to take a balanced view of the matter. In my view, the most urgent thing at the moment is to prevent further loss of human life and to initiate a process that will bring about a political solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Israel [Benjamin Netanyahu] repeatedly expresses his opposition to such a solution. He has stated once again that he is the guarantee that there will never be a Palestinian state.

However, the international community is overwhelmingly – and the European Union unanimously – in favour of such a solution. The EU’s greatest task over the coming months will be to establish whether that solution is still feasible, and to work towards it. So we must condemn the continuing expansion of the illegal settlements on the West Bank, which are in defiance of UN resolutions. We must try to end the violence which is now affecting not Gaza but, rather, that part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

I call on you to engage in a discussion that will transcend the emotions inevitably affecting us all at the moment and seek a means of ensuring that rationality prevails, that lives are saved and that peace can be established after 100 years of war. 

Thank you very much. 

Closing remarks 

Mr President, thank you, Honourable members, 

Allow me to continue in Spanish, I feel much more comfortable. 

I have listened to you very carefully for an over an hour and I have been able to see to what extent viewpoints differ regarding this dramatic conflict. We are of course witnessing a dramatic moment in the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine - from a humanitarian point of view and from a political point of view. We must really try to move beyond emotions to try to seek solutions.

Honourable members, my position is not easy, as I represent the common foreign policy positions of the European Union – when they exist. When they don't, I try to help build them. I am therefore very often asked questions that I can't answer. Because my own personal answer has no value, except for myself. And as far as the political institution that I represent is concerned, there is no answer because the positions are different. We saw this at the United Nations vote in the General Assembly. I’ve just seen it in the Foreign Affairs Council and we will surely see it again at tonight’s UN vote.

The European Council at the end of this week will discuss this issue again. Some [Member] States have one position, while others have another. Some Member States feel a special responsibility towards Israel's security, because it forms part of their own existence, as is undoubtedly the case with Germany, given its past responsibilities in the Holocaust. Others feel no historical responsibility and view reality from a different perspective. 

But we have to try to find solutions. We have to try to give meaning to our words and not misuse adjectives, because sometimes hyperbole kills nuance and makes it impossible for us to reason and find common ground.

For instance, I said – and I think I was misinterpreted – something that I would like to clarify for you, Mr [Reinhard] Bütikofer. I think that the international community agrees that the political solution to the problem involves building two states. I was told this in China. All the EU’s Member States agree. In Barcelona, this was the opinion of all the Arab, Muslim States, except one. I think it is the common position of the international community: the political solution involves trying to build a state for Israel, which already has one, and a state for Palestine, which doesn’t.

I also said – and I think this is an objective truth – that the Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] has said time and time again that he opposes this solution. He presents himself to the Israeli people as the best guarantee of ensuring that this never happens. Am I then wrong to say that he opposes the political solution that the international community is seeking? Am I wrong or is this simply logic, Mr [Reinhard] Bütikofer? It’s simply logic.

If we say that the political solution involves building two states and someone says that they are opposed to doing this, then they are opposed to the political solution, aren't they? This is not about being ‘biased’ against the Israeli government; this is what I was taught in basic logic lessons. 

Israel has the right to defend itself – of course it does. We all recognise this. But the right to self-defence, as with all rights, has its limits. It’s not a matter of repeatedly saying that Israel has the right to defend itself while respecting international law, but of asking ourselves whether it is respecting international law. This is the question that each and every one of you has to answer. I am not going to answer this question, because here too there is no unanimity. Opinions differ.

But I think there are limits to the right to defend oneself. I do not think it is morally justifiable, I do not think it is morally justifiable, to kill one person who is guilty and at the same time kill 300 people who are innocent. I do not think that that can be justified. When we look at the numbers, and when Israel acknowledges that it has killed 5 000 Hamas fighters, when we are talking about 20 000 civilian victims – half of them children – the proportionality between the aim of defending oneself and the resulting number of civilian casualties is concerning to say the least. 

It is not anti-Semitic to say this. I do not think there are any anti-Semites here. No one is against the Jewish people just because they are Jewish. On the contrary, if there is one thing that I find repugnant it is being against a human being because they belong to an ethnic, religious or political group. But I do claim the right to criticise the way in which the Israeli government is behaving without being labelled an anti-Semite for doing so. I do claim the right to defend the existence of a Palestinian state without that meaning that I am questioning the existence of the state of Israel. I do claim the need to eradicate terrorist movements, such as Hamas, and to minimise civilian casualties. Because, morally, there must be an alternative to the mass murder of children to achieve an aim. Because, if not, if there is no alternative, then there is no proportionality and there is not even the most basic respect for human rights. 

This is what we are discussing at this critical moment in history. So, set aside your extreme positions of being on the side of one party or the other and try to contribute towards finding a solution that first involves preventing any more civilian casualties.

This means stopping the attacks, now. This means stopping the fighting, now. Mr President, there is another thing that truly shocked me. I heard it said that UNRWA is part of the problem. UNRWA is part of the problem? UNRWA is an agency that 5 million refugees depend on to live. 170 of its staff have been killed in the bombings, most of them alongside their families. UNWRA is responsible for trying to ensure the survival of 1.9 million people who wander the streets without any shelter whatsoever, providing them with the minimum assistance that the international community can offer. That is part of the problem? 

Please show some respect for the dead. Respect for the people who put their lives at risk to try and help others. Respect for the United Nations.

Honourable Members, now is the time to make a political commitment to finding a solution. We must not retreat into history to see what came first: the chicken or the egg. To see who caused the first death in a story that has been going on for over 100 years.

We must seek solutions for those people who are still alive and this will require a lot of work to overcome the confrontation and the hatred that is being sown by what is happening. Because eradicating Hamas by bombing and destroying Gaza will not be a solution. And this is clear to those who have been trying for many years to eradicate terrorist movements in this way and have never been successful.

Look, the places to the lay the blame are quite evenly distributed. They are quite evenly distributed, because I have a statement here that says: ‘Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state, anyone who wants to ensure that a Palestinian state never exists must support bolstering Hamas. And transfer money to Hamas. That's what we’re doing. That’s part of our strategy. Financing Hamas to ensure that a Palestinian state never exists.’ Do you know who said that? Mr Netanyahu, in the Knesset, in March 2019. 

Thank you. 

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-250495