Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 More Important than Other Conflicts
- 2 1967–79: A ‘Marvellous Opportunity’ Opens Up for the EC’s Emerging Foreign Policy
- 3 1980–91: Forward-thinking on the Long Road to Oslo
- 4 1991–2000: Peace through Regional Cooperation
- 5 2000–9: The Israeli–Arab Conflict in the 9/11 Era
- 6 2009–19: Upholding the Sacred Flame of the Two-state Solution
- 7 Conclusions: The Past Fifty Years – and the Next?
- References to the Bulletin
- References to EU Declarations, Press Releases and Other Publications
- References to Other Literature
- Coding Schedule
- Index
2 - 1967–79: A ‘Marvellous Opportunity’ Opens Up for the EC’s Emerging Foreign Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2020
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 More Important than Other Conflicts
- 2 1967–79: A ‘Marvellous Opportunity’ Opens Up for the EC’s Emerging Foreign Policy
- 3 1980–91: Forward-thinking on the Long Road to Oslo
- 4 1991–2000: Peace through Regional Cooperation
- 5 2000–9: The Israeli–Arab Conflict in the 9/11 Era
- 6 2009–19: Upholding the Sacred Flame of the Two-state Solution
- 7 Conclusions: The Past Fifty Years – and the Next?
- References to the Bulletin
- References to EU Declarations, Press Releases and Other Publications
- References to Other Literature
- Coding Schedule
- Index
Summary
Europe is too small and disunited and therefore weak. It has no hand in shaping the world of today and tomorrow; it is in danger of slipping into a state of dependence and technical and economic underdevelopment. If Europe wants to regain the lead it must show the world a new image, demonstrate fresh vitality, make use of her moral, intellectual and material resources and really become Europe. (Bulletin of the EEC 8-1967: 68)
On 22 June 1967, less than two weeks after the June 1967 war had ended, the European Parliament (EP) held a debate on what was called ‘the situation in the Middle East’. The rapporteur, Fernand Dehousse, opened the debate by particularly deploring the ‘lack of a politically united Europe at this juncture’, which ‘was a marvellous opportunity for the Six to work out the first elements of a common foreign policy’, according to Dehousse (Bulletin of the EEC 8-1967: 82). Members of the Parliament from all party groups unanimously supported Israel, with René Pleven, the representative of the Liberal and Allied Group stating:
The Europe of the Six was alone in its moral right to preach reconciliation: it had known wars, untold suffering, massacres, and humiliations more appalling than anything the presence of Israeli soldiers in El Kantara [an Egyptian city on the western side of the Suez Canal] could represent. Yet the peoples of Europe had made their peace with one another and were now an example to the world. (Bulletin of the EEC 8-1967: 83)
The representative of the Christian Democrat Group, Henri Moreau de Melen, stated that it would be more profitable to discuss the consequences of the war than its cause, and that it was of no great consequence who had fired the first shot. He went on to deplore the fact that Europe had not yet made sufficient progress to be able to present a concerted policy (Bulletin of the EEC 8-1967: 82). The representative of the Socialist Group, Ludwig Metzger, stated that the Middle East crisis did not permit neutrality, and that Israel, whose survival was at stake according to the representative, must be supported (Bulletin of the EEC 8-1967: 82).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- EU Diplomacy and Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1967–2019 , pp. 14 - 39Publisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2020