Meeting with Palestinian Member of Parliament, Dr Mustafa Barghouti

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

23 August 2011
Chairperson: Ms C September (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Dr Mustapha Barghouti, Palestinian Member of Parliament, presented the current situation on the ground in Palestine.  After 20 years of negotiations, the Palestinian people found themselves obliged to appeal to the United Nations and demand recognition of the Palestinian state and admission of the Palestinian state into the UN General Assembly. Unless something was done immediately, the Israeli impositions had created a high risk that would make a peace based on a two-state solution impossible. The idea to go to the UN was a result of the gradual vanishing of the Palestinian state.

Palestine had chosen to go to the UN over the table of negotiation because there was no table of negotiation; Israel had effectively blocked any possibility of negotiations by insisting on settlement activities. De facto Israeli unilateral measures had undermined the prospect of a two-state solution. Palestinian territory had shrunk from 44% of Palestine’s original land in 1948 to 11% currently.

With the expansion of settlements, new enclaves had taken away parts of the Palestinian territory in the West Bank. This activity had resulted in a Palestine that was no longer a continuous state, nor a viable one and it had left Palestinian people with no resources and had clustered the population into ‘ghetto structures’ or ‘Bantustans’. The only map in modern human history that resembled the current Palestinian map was apartheid-era South Africa. The Palestinian authority had no real power and no real sovereignty, as it was a government under occupation.

The nature of the Israeli measures had created a system of apartheid. A Palestinian was allowed to use 50 cubic meters of water per capita per year, while an Israeli was allowed to use up to 2400. The Palestinian GDP per capita was on average $1000 USD, while the average Israeli GDP was $28 000. Palestinians were forced to buy products at an inflated Israeli market price due to an imposed tax union and an imposed control of imports and exports. 70% of Palestinian taxes went to the Israeli authority.

This situation could not be tolerated and needed to be changed, which was why the Palestinians had turned to the UN and demanded recognition of the Palestinian state. Palestine was thankful to South Africa, who recognised the Palestinian state long ago and had a Palestinian embassy in South Africa. Going to the UN alone would not end the occupation immediately. There was a long way to go, but Palestinian freedom and dignity could not be denied. The PNI believed in a strategy called the four pillars of Palestinian struggle based on self-organisation, self-reliance and defiance of Israeli occupation measures. The four pillars were 1) non-violent resistance, 2) mobilising international solidarity, 3) Palestinian unity 4) changing economic policies to focus on helping people to survive.

The Committee members raised questions on the perception of Palestinian provocation, the role of the UN and the United States in the peace process and the issue of refugees in Palestine.


Meeting report

Chairperson Mr T Magama was unavailable for the meeting and Ms C September was nominated as acting Chairperson for the meeting. The acting Chairperson welcomed Dr Barghouti and pronounced that the meeting would deal with the situation on the ground in Palestine. 

Dr Mustapha Barghouti, Palestinian MP (Palestinian National Initiative) thanked the Committee for the invitation and stated that it was a great honour to address South African’s Parliament, as he was a member of a parliament that could not meet. He stated that the one question that his presentation dealt with was that after 20 years of negotiations, the Palestinian people found themselves obliged to appeal to the United Nations and demand recognition of the Palestinian state and admission of the Palestinian state into the UN General Assembly. Unless something was done immediately, the Israeli impositions had created a high risk that would make a peace based on a two-state solution impossible. The Oslo agreement was signed in 1993 and by 1999 there should have been a Palestinian state and an Israeli withdrawal from Occupied Territories and a finalisation of all final status issues. Not only had this not happened, but also any progress made was practically reversed in 2002 when the Israeli army invaded the West Bank and Gaza. The idea to go to the UN was a result of the gradual vanishing of the Palestinian state.

Palestine had chosen to go to the UN over the table of negotiation because there was no table of negotiation; Israel had effectively blocked any possibility of negotiations by insisting on settlement activities. The question was asked whether Palestine should choose between violent resistance or peaceful non-violent resistance by going to the UN.

De facto Israeli unilateral measures had undermined the two-state solution. The idea of a two-state solution was not a new one it was an old concept that existed in 1947 when the partition plan about dividing Palestine into two entities took place. At that time the UN decided that there should be a Palestinian state in an area that constituted 44% of the original land of Palestine and Israel would be established in an area that constituted approximately 54%. At that time Palestinians owned 93% of the land but were allocated 44%. In 1948 the Israeli state was established on the basis of this partition plan and was allocated 78%, rather than the agreed upon 54%. The West Bank and the Gaza strip were reoccupied by Israel after the 1967 war. In 1988 the Palestinian were pressured to give up their dream of one democratic state with everyone living together, similar to what South Africa had, and accepted a two-state solution. The Palestinians were allocated territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip which represented 22% of the original Palestinian land, or half of what the UN had initially agreed on in 1947. Today’s Israeli settlement activities would take away the whole area of the Jordan valley, the whole area around Jerusalem and a large part of the West Bank, confiscating 85% of water resources. These activities had practically destroyed the continuity of the Palestinian entity; this had reduced the Palestinian territory from 18% down to 11% in Israel’s plan. It was incomprehensible to sit down at the negotiation table, while settlement activities continued to happen.

Israel had built a wall claiming it was for security. The wall was not built on the border, but rather inside the Palestinian territory, confiscating around 60% of the land. With the expansion of settlements, new enclaves had taken away parts of the Palestinian territory in the West Bank. This activity has resulted in a Palestine that was no longer a continuous state, nor a viable one and it had left Palestinian people with no resources and had clustered the population into ‘ghetto structures’ or ‘Bantustans’. The only map in modern human history that resembled the current Palestinian map was apartheid-era South Africa. The Palestinian authority had no real power and no real sovereignty, as it was a government under occupation. Even the President could not move freely from one city to another within his own borders without Israeli permission.

The nature of the Israeli measures had created a system of apartheid. A Palestinian was allowed to use 50 cubic meters of water per capita per year, while an Israeli was allowed to use up to 2400. The Palestinian GDP per capita was on average $1000 USD, while the average Israeli GDP was $28 000. Palestinians were forced to buy products at an inflated Israeli market price due to an imposed tax union and an imposed control of imports and exports. 70% of Palestinian taxes went to the Israeli authority, who withheld the revenue when it disapproved of Palestinian political measures.

The Wall in Palestine is three times as long and twice as high as the Berlin wall used to be. In many cases the wall had entrenched Palestinians in small areas and they cannot move in or out without permission. Thousands of people were stuck behind the wall with no access to education or health care unless they have permits. According to Army instructions, permit holder can cross between 7:40-8:00AM, 2:00-2:15PM and 6:45-7:00 PM. That was a window of 50 minutes in a day. This situation was dire for someone in need of urgent medical care. 85 women had given birth at checkpoints and one third of them had lost their babies. The level of humiliation was unacceptable.

This situation could not be tolerated and needed to be changed, which was why the Palestinians had turned to the UN and demanded recognition of the Palestinian state. Palestine was thankful to South Africa, who had recognised the Palestinian state long ago and had a Palestinian embassy in South Africa. Going to the UN alone would not end the occupation immediately. There was a long way to go, but Palestinian freedom and dignity could not be denied. None of the Palestinian struggle negated, ignored or denied the suffering of Jewish people throughout history. However this suffering did not justify the suffering of the Palestinian people today. Recognition of an independent Palestinian state, and affording the Palestinian people freedom, dignity, equality and justice would not only liberate Palestinians from apartheid, but would liberate the Israeli’s themselves from this system which threatened the futures of both people.

Discussion
Ms C Dudlley (ACDP) stated that the images presented in the presentation were very disturbing and the information was very interesting. She asked whether Dr Barghouti was under the opinion that there was no provocation on the Palestinian side and that Israel was paranoid as to the threat of suicide bombers?

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) stated that the visuals in the presentation were indeed disturbing and were reminiscent of days gone by in South Africa’s not so distant past. She asked what had been the UN’s response up to now, as the UN often makes resolutions and never follows through on them.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) asked what would be the geo-political element of the state that they were appealing to the UN for? Regarding the two-state solution, in 2008 there was an upsurge in the movement to create a two-state solution, which was now being presented as a single state solution. Was Israel very much against this proposed single state solution? Was the lack of unity of the Palestinian people an obstacle to finding a solution? South Africa’s focus should be on bringing unity to the various Palestinian factions first.

Ms F Nagdee-Hajaig (House Chairperson: International Relations) welcomed Dr Barghouti and stated that South Africa was a strong supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people and wanted to see peace between Israel and Palestine. A number of resolutions had been signed, but nothing concrete had resulted from it. What was the reason for this? Why did Israel get away with non-adherence to UN resolutions? The US states that it was a leader and practitioner of human rights, but for 63 years it had not done so in relation to the Palestinian people. How can South Africa accept this duplicity from a major nation that proposes that all nations be true to human rights?

Mr K Mubu (DA) asked how the return of refugees who left at the beginning of the establishment of the state of Israel was being dealt with by the Palestinian authority and to what level was this a stumbling block to achieving the goal of the recognition of a Palestinian state?

The Chairperson stated that they were living in an unjust world where contradictions arose every day. Institutions and multilateral bodies needed to be afforded the opportunity to perform their function and solutions needed come from within these institutions. The Committee applauded the Palestinian approach to engage the UN. She asked why was there such a quick reaction to the situation in North Africa and yet Palestine was a forgotten issue. Why could a solution not be found through negotiations and peaceful means?

Dr Barghouti replied that the Israeli concern about suicide bombers was often in the form of propaganda statements, as opposed to statements searching for a solution. Suicide bombing was not taking place today. One of the greatest achievements was that all Palestinian factions, including Hamas, were committed to stopping military actions and this had been overlooked. In a conflict both sides suffer, but it was a grave mistake to equate the Israelis and Palestinians in this conflict. One side was occupied and one side was occupying, one side was exploiting the other and running a system of apartheid and the other side was the victim of that system. Equating the two sides was not the right approach and there needed to be an understanding as to who carried what responsibilities. Palestinians were ready to carry their responsibility, which was the essence of the implementation of the recommendations of the roadmap by the Palestinian Authority. These measures ensure security and commitment to non-violence. The solution to violence was peace, but peace could not happen at the expense of one side. The balance of power dictated the solution. The two-state solution was a bitter compromise but there was a limit to how far the compromise could be compromised. This was eliminating the prospect of a peace based on a two-state solution.

On the UN issue, there was not a case where so many resolutions had been made by committees, by the General Assembly and even by the Security Council. And there was not a case where so may resolutions had not been implemented. John Dugard was a South African who had been the rapporteur on human rights issues in Palestine for many years. He had written extensively and continually about human rights, but unfortunately nothing had happened. Richard Goldstone and his committee had come up with a very clear report indicating that war crimes had been committed by Israel and that report was not used to take any measures, instead he was manipulated to reject his own report.

The Palestinian Authority would be appealing to the UN for the recognition of the state based on the geopolitical structure of the 1967 borders, with Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. At this moment there were 122 countries that recognized Palestine. It had been 63 years of struggle, whereas South Sudan took 48 hours to be approved as a state and admitted to the UN General Assembly. Palestine respected the right of South Sudan to be a state, but the question needed to be asked why Palestine had failed in its attempts at statehood.

The Quartet on the Middle East had failed drastically mainly as a result of US policy. Palestine had very large expectations after Obama was elected. There was optimism after Obama’s encouraging speech in Cairo where he spoke about stopping settlement activities and he advised the Palestinians to abstain from violence. Dr Barghouti stated that he belonged to a political party called the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI), which was an independent, non-Fatah, non-Hamas group established in 2002 to fight corruption and achieve a good democracy, but also to liberate the Palestinian people. Today many of the Palestinian accept the PNI methods, including Hamas. This was positive because non-violence was the most effective path to peace and it was the method that enabled Palestinians to maintain their moral integrity. Obama was under the pressure of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US and Congress and had changed his mind. The fact that Palestinians were turning to the UN was an indicator of the failure of US foreign policy.

On the question of the two-state versus a one-state solution, due to the physical reality on the ground and the continuation of settlement activities at an unprecedented speed, the option of a two-state solution was becoming less likely. One alternative would be for the Palestinians to leave Palestine, but this would never happen. The second option would be for Palestinians to accept the system of apartheid and occupation, which was not an option. The example of the South African struggle was the most vivid example of people requesting dignity and equal rights. The only remaining alternative would be to continue to struggle against apartheid and have one democratic state with equal rights for everybody. Which was the initial goal, which was changed under the pressure of the international community to accept a compromise. If the two-state solution was killed, the responsibility on Israel needed to be identified. He stated that he would like to see a two-state solution as soon as possible so that the children of Palestine did not have to continue to live in a conflict zone and live under occupation.

On the question of why this conflict persisted and why the international community had not made progress on it, it was a clear example of a powerful system of hypocrisy and double standards. Former US Secretary of State, James Baker stated that after Desert Storm, the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be resolved. This went beyond a shameful lack of justice into a direction of serious irresponsibility in terms of handling the conflict. If the situation in Palestine was to change, it needed to change as a result of a balance of power. Going to the UN would not change much, but would be a useful step in the right direction. That step alone would not change the balance of power. The PNI believed in a strategy called the four pillars of Palestinian struggle based on self-organisation, self-reliance and defiance of Israeli occupation measures. The four pillars were 1) non-violent resistance, 2) mobilising international solidarity, 3) Palestinian unity 4) Changing economic policies to focus on helping people to survive. The mobilisation of international solidarity similar to that which South Africa used in its struggle to end apartheid was an important element of the strategy.

On the issue of Palestinian unity, Dr Barghouti appreciated the remarks and thanked South Africa as one of the countries (like Sweden, Norway and Russia) who had distinguished themselves in maintaining good relations with all Palestinian groups rather than supporting one group over another. Many things remained unclear on the issue of Palestinian unity. After the 2006 elections won by Hamas, Dr Barghouti worked as a mediator between Fatah and Hamas. This resulted in a Palestinian unity government in March 2007 including 96% of the Palestinian elected parliament represented. After forming this unity government, it was subject to severe isolation and embargo by most of the international community. This embargo led to a collapse of the unity government within three months and this was a shock after creating the most democratic model in the Arab world. The Israeli Foreign Minister Avidgor Lieberman recently said in an official statement that “the Israelis do not want the Palestinians to be unified. We want them to remain divided, because if they remain divided, they remain weak.” Israel was trying to obstruct Palestinian unity. The struggle was not only about unifying Palestine, but also about bringing back democracy to Palestine as right now there were two executive authorities in the West Bank and Gaza, neither of which were accountable to a legislative body or to the voting public. By bringing back unity and elections, there could be a functional parliament, independent judiciary system and a country where human rights were respected by Palestinians.

The issue of refugees would be finalised in the final status negotiations alongside the topics of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, security and water issues. The issue of refugees was an unalienable individual human right according to international law. This right has to be implemented according to a negotiation outcome due to the complexity of the issue. By continuing to destroy the possibility of a two-state solution, the demographic problem would be exaggerated.

Mr M Booi (ANC) asked about the Palestinian relationship with China.

Dr Barghouti replied that China was a very important country due to its economic weight and demographic value, and because it was becoming very active internationally. Palestine needed to make more effort to speak with Chinese official structures because Israeli was using its military power for ‘military diplomacy’. Israel was the third largest military exporter in the world. Its export sales amounted to $6.3 billion per year. They had used military connections and the security industry as an instrument to advance relations with other countries. The official Chinese position remained the same; China recognized Palestine and supported its role in the UN, but more efforts to alert China to the existing situation on the ground needed to be made.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Barghouti on behalf of Parliament and people of South Africa for his contributions and for encouraging the South African people to reflect on their own experiences.

The Chairperson closed the meeting.

 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: