"Our Influence Remains Marginal"

A member of the German Parliament, Rolf Mützenich is the disarmament spokesman for the Social Democratic Party (SPD). He is also part of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

DW-WORLD.DE: After the Middle East conference in Rome, crisis diplomacy was in full gear -- but there is still no unified demand for a hasty end to the violence. How would you assess the Rome conference?

Rolf Mützenich: I had hoped for more. However, it was good that important states and international organizations were able to agree on common terminology at the Rome conference. This can only be evaluated in the context of the G8 summit, the EU foreign minister conferences and deliberations in the UN Security Council.

Therein lies the bottom line: We need a lasting cease-fire as quickly as possible. The use of military violence must be stopped.

Israel sees the concluding declaration from the Rome conference as a carte blanche to continue its Lebanon offensive, while German Foreign Minister Steinmeier spoke of a "great misunderstanding." Did the international community, particularly the European Union, contribute to the legitimization of this legally questionable campaign?

The interpretation of Israel's justice minister is completely absurd. The legitimization of the disproportionate use of violence is not the issue here. Both sides have harmed the civilian population with military means, which finally has to stop.

What we need is a stepwise process: a cease-fire for humanitarian aid and a solution to prevent further escalations in this region.

Political observers and Middle East experts have criticized Germany's passivity since the beginning of the Middle East crisis. Is the German stance breaking down unity within the EU? And how can the EU be a counterweight to the pro-Israel position that the US is taking?

I don't see any passivity. Other European capitals that have a colonial past in the region could be accused of passivity. But the German foreign minister is doing quite a lot, both within the region and outside of it. He was not only in Israel, Egypt and Palestine, he also sent representatives to Beirut, Damascus and New York. This is very active diplomacy.

However, our influence remains marginal, especially as the American foreign policy is too hesitant. I don't at all share the American secretary of state's perspective that a new Middle East emerging. It makes me dizzy to think that new structures should be formed by violent means. That is a perception that belongs in the past.

The then-ruling coalition between the Social Democrats and the Greens was supported by the population in 2003 when the it rejected the Iraq war as contrary to international law. In the current conflict, the German people seem to view Israel's conduct with increasingly sharper criticism than the elite decision makers, particularly in light of civilian suffering. Is this a sign of a significant discrepancy between the political elite and the general population?

It's not as clear-cut as you imply. There are some differences between the two cases. First of all, Israel was actively attacked. Soldiers were abducted in Gaza and on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Israel believes its very existence is in danger, and as the Iranian president does not miss any opportunity to make anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic comments, it is completely understandable.

However, Israel is committing unrestrained violence against large parts of Lebanon and the Lebanese population that do not have anything to do with the current crisis. The tragedy becomes even more depressing when we consider that a new Lebanon with an active public society was just beginning to show itself in the past few months.

Of course, these are not singular events in region that has known violence for decades. It's bitter that -- with Israel's bombardment, the abduction of the soldiers, the arrest of freely elected Palestinian delegates and ministers and Israel's military campaign -- the process in Palestine was ended.

Perhaps part of the Hamas would have gone down the path that Fatah took -- that is, recognizing Israel's right to existence and abstaining from violence. The prisoners' paper opened a new window for peace a few weeks ago. But extremists didn't want this solution. Even groups in Israel weren't happy to see this kind of solution to the negotiations.