Brussels, 22/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on 20-21 September, the Socialist group in the European Parliament held a conference, attended by well-known Arab and Palestinian figures, on the role of the EU in the Middle East and the Arab world. Martin Schulz, the leader of the group, re-stated the need for dialogue where all sides would be “treated with equal rights” and he set out how the Socialists' would proceed: - ensure that Syria was involved in the process, on condition that it accepted Resolution 1701 on Lebanon; - keep a close eye on how things develop in Palestine and engage in dialogue with the Palestinian Authority, which would become its representative as soon as it agreed to respect international agreements. Pasqualina Napoletano argued for an international conference on all the conflicts in the region. “Everyone calls on the Palestinians to change but no one calls on Israel simply to abide by international resolutions,” said Abdallah Abdallah, Chairman of the political committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council, adding, of Israel, “we accept we have to live with our neighbours, but not that they should be in our country”.
Joseph Bahout, an adviser to the Forward Forum (Lebanon), gave an uncompromising analysis of the situation after the conflict. In his opinion one of the first lessons to be drawn would to show “the organic relationship between all the conflicts in the region”. While believing it to be “useless and complex” to try to determine “who won and who lost”, Mr Bahout said he was waiting for a “second round”, as if the war in Lebanon had only be “a first draft, a rehearsal” ahead of general confrontation. He backed up this pessimistic prediction with a number of developments: “1701 is one of a new series of resolutions, like those on Iraq, which comprise a number of elements” and link several conflicts, all made more complex by the fact that each side had “its” own interpretation of the resolution. Another reason for pessimism, he said, was the development on the Lebanese scene, where “a very strong split had developed” at the same time as “two moot points: the Syrian issue and the Iranian nuclear matter” were raised. Equally pessimistic, Israeli guest Einat Wilf, a Labour Party office bearer and former adviser to Shimon Peres, gave a harsh analysis of society in her country, where only “confusion” and doubt reign. “The more time goes on, the less we understand what happened. The war in Lebanon has left only gloom,” she said, asking, “Who won? Against whom? Against Hezbollah? Against Lebanon, against terrorists, against civilians or against Iran? Did this war have a beginning or an end? Why did this war happen? Did it open a window of opportunity, or did it close one?” She said the country was going through an “existentialist crisis”, but that did not mean a loss of faith in the very existence of Israel. The Israelis were trying to resolve their existentialist crisis by turning on their neighbours, retorted Abdallah Abdallah. These two expressions of pessimism led to wide debate during which several MEPs unanimously emphasised how urgent it was to resume dialogue. Carlos Caneiro said a “Madrid II” was necessary, and Ana Gomes and Béatrice Patrie wondered in particular about the influence of religious leaders in the Israeli political system and on the dangers of a “confessionalisation” of the conflicts in the region.
On Thursday morning, Azza Karam, adviser to the UNDP, Jan Schonenboom, adviser to the Dutch government, and Joseph Milla, Director of the Centre de recherché sur la paix, Paris, focused on the need to clarify understanding of the Islamist phenomenon, which they all called to be distinguished from Islam. The general conclusion was that there was a need for dialogue with the tendencies claiming to represent Islam. MEPs, in particular Ana Gomez, Béatrice Patrie and Véronique de Keyser, called for a distinction to be made between the various perceptions of Islam in the countries that claim to represent it, between Arab and non-Arab Islam particularly. Turkish and Tunisian (from the time of Bourguiba) experiences were spoken of.