Palestinian application to United Nations for statehood: various briefings

Meeting report

Palestinian application to United Nations for statehood
Chairperson’s Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the numerous guests to the Committee meeting. He noted that the Committee had invited a number of organisations to give a briefing about the issues surrounding the Palestinian application to the United Nations (UN) for statehood. The Committee had invited the Palestinian representative, the Israeli Ambassador, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the Egyptian Community in South Africa (ECOSA), and Open Shuhada Street (OSS). Disappointingly, neither the Israeli Ambassador nor the Palestinian representatives could attend the meeting. There had been a communication breakdown between the Embassy and the Parliamentary office. The Chairperson also stated, for the record, that an invitation was sent to the Israeli Ambassador, but his office had responded that he was unavailable because of Jewish holidays, and that the Committee should engage with the Deputy Ambassador, who would brief the Committee. The Committee duly did that, but was advised, two days prior to the meeting that the Deputy Ambassador could not attend because of the “short notice”. The Chairperson gave his considered view that the Israeli embassy was “not doing itself a favour”, because it had robbed itself of an opportunity to engage on the issues from their perspective. A concern was previously raised by Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) about the fact that when the Palestinian representative Dr Mustapha Barghouti briefed the Committee, no opportunity was given to Israeli representatives to respond. However, the Committee could proffer another opportunity for views to be given, time permitting, at a later stage.

He clarified that COSATU wrote to the Chairperson’s office giving their perspective on the particular matter. ECOSA also sent correspondence as well as raising a number of issued during a meeting with the Chairperson in his office. Open Shuhada Street was a local non-government organisation (NGO) doing work in Palestine and had a clear perspective on what was happening on the ground in Palestine.

The issue of Palestine had been dogging the world for over 60 years and was a matter on which the South African Government had, on numerous occasions, taken very clear positions. This matter was now sitting in front of the United Nations. It was important for this Committee to engage on this matter and express a clear voice and position, which the Chairperson thought might be the “moral issue of the Century”. It was important that the Committee engaged on this matter from a perspective of South Africa’s own experiences. Members of Parliament should take the moral high ground, on how there was engagement on these issues, and Parliament could not be silent on such definitive events in the rest of the world.

The Chairperson raised the issue of the Egyptian-brokered deal, which saw the release of Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1 027 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails. However, he pointed out that they represented only a portion of the over 5 200 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, of whom 202 had never been charged. This was an important step. There had been prisoner exchanges in the past, but the fundamental question was to what extent this would influence the trajectory and resolution of the issues about final status, leading to the creation of two states living side by side in peace. The only solution that would bring peace to this part of the world would be the creation of a Palestinian state that could be at peace with Israel. If deals could be struck around these issues, this would offer hope and encouragement that the parties could use this as a springboard to move towards each other, and find lasting solutions to the problems afflicting Palestine and resolving the Palestinian grievance.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) stated that this meeting was taking place on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot when the Israeli Ambassador was out of the country. She commented that the Committee had not checked its facts properly. Other parties may well have taken offence to this. Ms Dudley was pleased that the Chairperson had detailed why COSATU had been invited. However, she noted that about a week earlier, the organisation Friends of Israel had protested and had delivered a memorandum to the Committee. This group was not present, and she wanted this to be placed on record.

Ms C September (ANC) stated that on Monday 10 October some Committee Members had a meeting with Mr Jafar Farrah, at which he had presented some documents concerning the livelihood of Palestinians living in Israel if a one-state solution was presented. Those documents needed to be handed out to members who could not attend that meeting.

The Chairperson clarified, in respect of the Jewish holiday, that the Embassy had itself indicated that the Deputy Ambassador would be available to attend, but then had indicated, two days prior to the meeting, that he would in fact not be available. He said that the Embassy should have been up-front about the availability. In relation to the assertion that Friends of Israel had communicated with the Committee, the Chairperson noted that he had received no correspondence from this group, and would have invited it, had correspondence been received, but that he could deal only with issues that landed on his desk. He also added that he had not been made aware of a meeting, or correspondence with Mr Farrah.

Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) briefing
Mr Tahrir Sena, COSATU representative, noted that “an injury to one was an injury to all”, and said that this was the reason why COSATU was engaging on the question of Palestine. COSATU had met a number of delegations from both sides of the conflict. A number of them had the same important message to COSATU, namely that the world was looking to South Africa for guidance to liberate Palestinians. It was clear that the Palestinian case was quite similar to the conditions of apartheid that South Africa had experienced.

Mr Sena stated that the State of Israel was a settler, colonial state established in Palestine and had occupied Palestinian land to house its settler society. In doing so, the native population of Palestinians had become dispossessed of the right to self-determination and property rights. The laws of the State of Israel gave preferential treatment to the settler community in terms of land ownership, housing, water, freedom of movement, education, job opportunities and health services. Settlers were defined as Jews, and non-Jews were discriminated against, which was comparable to the situation in apartheid South Africa. The State’s material wealth and resources were denied to Arab Palestinians, and COSATU delegations had witnessed this first-hand. At present, Palestinians were confined and separated by an apartheid wall. Travel in and out of these ‘Bantustans’ were controlled by over 650 checkpoints and roadblocks. US $450 was spent per Israeli student on education, but this was compared to spending of only US$128 per Arab-Israeli student. He said that this was also similar to what had been done in South Africa with “Bantu education”

For these reasons, COSATU recommended that South Africa’s Parliament must back the Palestinian right to self-determination. The most important concern, for COSATU, was the effort to reach a viable state for, by and of all the people of Palestine, including those in the Diaspora who found themselves in the refugee camps. Whether or not the United Nations would grant statehood to Palestine, the crucial question was still whether the Israeli occupation, and violence and oppression of Palestinians would end. A state under occupation and continued Israeli aggression amounted to nothing more than a Bantustan. Recognition at the UN was only part of the broader struggle.

COSATU suggested that the Committee needed to pledge its support for the several principles articulated by Palestinian political and civil society organisations, as well as several longstanding UN resolutions. Firstly, it should support the ending of the Israeli occupation, de-colonisation of all Palestinian lands and dismantling the Israeli apartheid wall. Secondly, it should recognise the fundamental rights of the Palestinian citizens to full equality. Thirdly, it should respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. Fourthly, there should be an immediate end to Israel’s illegal settlements and blockade on Gaza. There also had to be an end to Israel’s discriminatory and racist policies.

Parliament needed to also allow differing views to filter into the discussion and each view needed to be deconstructed and judged on its own merits. Perhaps Parliament needed to consider setting up a ‘task team’ of some sort to look at the differing views and hammer out the details of Palestinian support. These principles were non-negotiable. The struggle needed to be intensified, particularly the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. As South Africa’s own anti-apartheid struggle had demonstrated, this was an effective, non-violent form of resistance that could bring an end to injustice and contribute immensely to liberation.

He noted that during the Palestinian bid for statehood, the United States’ hypocrisy and double standards had been exposed. The United States purportedly supported democracy in the Middle East, using its military power to enforce UN resolutions. However it had used its veto power at the UN Security Council 41 times, in defence of the apartheid State of Israel and against Palestinian rights. COSATU welcomed the South African government’s strong stance on this issue. South Africans and the democratic South African government had a moral duty to stand with the Palestinian people and all other just struggles around the world. This issue was not simply about UN statehood, but was about ensuring justice, peace and land distribution for Palestinians who had suffered too long.

Egyptian Community in South Africa (ECOSA) briefing
Mr Hamed Behairy, Spokesperson, ECOSA, stated that the submission to the UN of the Palestinian request was a historic moment, and suggested that if people failed to let Palestine have its own statehood, they would have failed as human beings.

Mr Behairy quoted Nelson Mandela who had said, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” Mr Behairy also quoted the words of Desmond Tutu: “I am a Black South African and if I were to change the names, a description of what was happening in the Gaza strip and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa”.

He noted that in 2007, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) had conducted a thorough research study on whether the State of Israel represented an apartheid state, and had concluded that Israel was indeed an apartheid State. Israel had appropriated land and water from Palestine, and had merged its economy with Palestine’s. Israel had imposed a system of domination to ensure subjugation over the Palestinian people, and in so doing, had denied the indigenous population the right to self determination.

Mr Behairy stated that ECOSA’s problem was never with Judaism as ECOSA and others had huge respect for the religion. However, it was concerned with Zionism, an ideology that was proposed in 1897, at the Basel Conference, by Joseph Hertzel. From the inception of Zionism, Palestine had been regarded as “a land without people, for people without land”, and henceforth Palestinians were denied the right to claim the land as their own.

Mr Behairy stated ECOSA’s view that Palestinians should be granted a state, according to the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, which referred to "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which every State in the area can live in security”. This resolution had also called for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, and termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace, within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.

Israel had continued to shy away from compliance with this Resolution because of the wording, which used the word “should”, which was then interpreted not as something that Israel “must” do.

In 1974, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 3236, which re-affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination without external interference, and the right to national independence and sovereignty.

Israel’s admission to the UN came about was a result of UN General Assembly Resolution 19 II, and “sympathetic considerations to consider Israel for admission”. Mr Behairy asked a rhetorical question as to whether Committee Members had “sympathetic considerations” for the people of Palestine. 128 countries, or 75% of the world, recognised the State of Palestine. Mr Behairy emphatically stated that justice would prevail in the end. ECOSA demanded a free statehood for Palestinian. This was a non-violent action that would be the solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Palestine had met all of the prerequisites of statehood listed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, as well as the UN membership requirements. From a legal perspective, there was no problem at all, but he described this as “a political game, all a damn political game!”. He said that the Israeli Ambassador to the UN had been quoted as saying that “the peace process was working in (Israel’s) advantage because we were gaining time”.

Mr Behairy stressed that in 2011 the IMF declared that Palestine was able to perform as a well functioning State. The statehood proposal did not violate any signed agreements between Palestine and Israel. There seemed no reason why the bid for statehood should be denied now, unless it was, once again, because of a political game to gain time. The statehood proposal in no way de-legitimised the State of Israel, but stressed that both sides wanted to live in peace.

Mr Behairy asserted that the Americans would not veto the proposal, but rather that they would send the proposal for a legal opinion. Palestine would continue to re-apply, as many countries such as Japan, Ireland and Portugal had done in the past, until successful. Mr Behairy referred to four maps of the region, showing the position in 1946, 1947, 1967 and currently, which showed the shrinking size of the Palestinian territory.  The Palestinian proposal was asking to return to the 1967 borders.

Mr Behairy closed by stating that South Africa’s position was particularly relevant as it had come from the same position of an apartheid State. Committee Members would have to ask themselves whether they wanted to play the game of politics, or whether they wanted to be truly honest to their fellow human beings.

Open Shuhada Street (OSS) briefing
Mr Lungisa Mndende, Activist, Open Shuhada Street,  stated that Open Shuhada Street (OSS) was a South African-based initiative to raise awareness about the lack of freedom of movement in Hebron, and how this issue reflected the greater injustice of the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory. OSS was firmly in favour of full civil and political rights for all Palestinians and all Israelis. OSS supported the two state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem as the capital. OSS stood in solidarity with Israeli and Palestinian activists working for human rights and justice. OSS was opposed to violence and all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Ms Zimkitu Booi, Activist, OSS, noted that OSS was currently working on the Ahava  campaign, which was concerned with a line of beauty products that were sold in South Africa, and imported by FDZ Pharmaceuticals. Ahava’s facilities were located on the North-Western shore of the Dead Sea, just six miles north of the area referred to as the West Bank. 45% of the company’s stock was owned by two illegal settlements. OSS was opposed to Ahava products, as it represented human rights violations against Palestinians. The two illegal settlements that owned Ahava products had deprived Palestinians of their land, had used water and other resources illegally, and resorted to curfews and road closures on a regular basis. The army and settlers were violent towards Palestinians on a regular basis and were in violation of international law.

Mr Zackie Achmat, Activist, OSS, stated that OSS was asking that the labelling of Ahava pProducts should clearly state that these were products of Israel, in fact, products of the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. or was for the label of Ahava products in South Africa to clearly to state that they were products of Israel and that they were in fact  the product of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. A complaint had been laid on behalf of OSS to the National Consumer Commissioner, to ensure that the products were properly labelled, and that South African consumer would have an informed choice on these products. OSS would welcome an engagement with the other side on this issue.

Mr Achmat detailed the past collaboration between the State of Israel and the apartheid government in South Africa, and referred to the book The Unspoken Alliance, by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, which was handed to Members. He stated that the State of Israel was “morally compromised”. OSS suggested that this Committee should, firstly, contact the European Union and urge it not to vote against Palestinian statehood. Secondly, the African Union should be urged to vote as a group,  because at the moment the UN was apparently putting pressure on the UN Security Council Members Nigeria and Gabon not to vote in favour of Palestinian statehood. The AU should take a collective stance. Thirdly, he said that Parliament in South Africa needed to debate a boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The Palestinian Authority had asked for a boycott of all settlement goods. OSS had been negotiating on its request to the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) that all products made in Israeli settlements should carry a label clearly identifying those goods as  products of the illegal Israeli settlements, made in occupied Palestinian territory. OSS urged Parliament to ensure that the Minister had no diplomatic pressure from the lobby that supported the occupation, and that instead, South African consumers should be given an informed choice. Finally, OSS asked the South African Parliament to arrange a genuine solidarity visit to go and meet dissenters in Israeli.

The ECOSA delegation showed a five-minute video displaying images of some of the various atrocities in Palestine as a result of Israeli aggression.

Discussion
Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) stated that the input from the stakeholders was comprehensive and informed the Committee on the situation in Israel and Palestine. South Africa’s approach to the conflict had been informed by its own struggle, which was based on the right to self-determination and respect for the basic human rights now enshrined by the Constitution. South Africa could not waver on matters of violence. There had to be respect for the rights and dignity of people. South Africa needed to call for the end to the killings and maimings. Although the South African foreign policy position was clear, the Committee had to listen to all sides, and move forward in a way that would be helpful.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) stated that he had been involved in these questions since 1986, and it was good to hear all sides to avoid becoming complacent and assuming that everything was known. He believed that the Committee must reiterate the position of government that South Africa supported a two-state solution in the region, with both states existing site by side in peace. It was important also to reiterate South Africa’s position at the UN, supporting the bid brought by the Palestinian leader Abbas, and urging that negotiations be expedited.  It was also important to decry the disunity of the Palestinian people, which had plagued them and had been used to move away from negotiations.

Ms Dudley stated that the agenda for this meeting was “Consideration of the application to the UN by the Palestinians for statehood”, rather than “Establishment of the Palestinian State”, so it must be emphasised that the means used to achieve the end should be discussed. Unilateral actions would complicate any peace process. No one was saying that there should be no State for Palestine, least of all Israel, who was committed to a two-State solution. However, a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would violate existing Palestinian-Israeli bilateral peace agreements, most notably the Interim Agreement from 1995, which expressly prohibited unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza, prior to a negotiated permanent status agreement being reached.

Ms Dudley stated that the official position of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) was that it did not support a Palestinian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (see attached document for full details). Israel had stated clearly that it was committed to a quest for peace and had a long-proven track record of making strategic concessions for this goal. Over the past decade, it had proved its willingness to negotiate land transfers, leaving Sinaii for peace with Egypt, leaving Gaza and South Lebanon. The land of Israel today was a small fraction of what was recognised as the home and birthplace of the Jewish people many hundreds of years before Christ.

Ms September stated that the ANC’s position had already been made clear. If comparisons were to be made, South African liberation was not brought about by South Africans alone. It was incomprehensible that South Africa should stand aside and fail to assist a country that had suffered bloodshed for many decades, telling people that they could not have the same dispensation that South Africans had achieved. It would be absolutely incorrect to deny anyone freedom from want. South Africa needed to refrain from doing that. She agreed that the Committee needed to broaden its approach, and there was nothing wrong in having public hearings to allow parties to be heard. She believed that the Committee should go further, and approach the academic institutions and other parties, and should also table a report in the National Assembly.

Mr S Njikelana (ANC) supported comments by Ms September, Mr Skosana and Mr Ngonyama, but disputed some of what Ms Dudley had said. He said that this Committee was seized with the responsibility of ensuring that the South African Parliament contributed to ensuring that there was leadership for a viable sustainable solution in Palestine. This Committee must ensure that South Africans rose above holding a parochial view, and took the opportunity to bring about a peaceable solution. He appealed to the ACDP to review its position, saying that it was confusing. The UN was a multi-lateral body. There was real hope of a breakthrough on Palestine, and this approach brought “political fresh air”. He urged that South Africa take the lead.

Mr Ngonyama appealed to colleagues on the Committee, from the ANC in particular, to remember that this was an international issue for all progressive organisations, and that the Committee should speak with one voice, not adopting party-political stances.

The Chairperson invited the delegates to make closing remarks.

Mr Behairy stated that there were some historical statements made that were absolutely incorrect. The Palestinians had Jewish communities in cities like Nablus, which had the right to be part of the society. 40% of Israel’s arms sales were exported to South Africa during apartheid, as detailed in The Unspoken Alliance, which was an excellent book. He stated that the Israeli admission into the UN in 1948 was unilateral, and questioned why the same opportunity was denied to Palestine now.

Mr Tahrir stated that COSATU was looking to Parliament to lead on this question and hoped to interact with the Committee on a more regular basis

Mr Achmat thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present and stated that further public hearings would be beneficial, to ensure that the questions of a free Palestine, refugees and Palestinians inside Israel were resolved. He stressed that the application to the United Nations was concerned with borders, and said that every country, and the UN itself, recognised the 1967 borders, so Israel should recognise them too. In relation to the labelling, he noted that the dti had approached the International Trade Commission, and that no country should be allowed to mis-label a product. The European Court of Justice had made a ruling that goods made in occupied Palestinian territories could not claim duty-free status, under the free trade agreement between Israel and the European Union, yet Israel seemed to be flouting this law.

The Chairperson stated his conviction that this was a moral issue, and South Africa had to remain committed to this cause. History would judge South Africa harshly if it let down the people of Palestine. In spite of strategic concession made by Israel, Israel still held 78% of the land, and Palestinians found themselves without civil liberties or citizenship in their own country. The strategic concessions to date, and their effect on the people of Palestine, needed to be further debated with representatives of Palestine and Israel.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would submit a report to the House, where a resolution would be taken on whether or not to support the bid, and what form this should take.

The meeting was adjourned.