Palestine Symposium - Lessons of the South African experience, Thoughts on Palestine and its recent bid for full UN membership

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

15 November 2011
Chairperson: Mr T Mangama (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The symposium’s purpose was to draw lessons and comparisons from the South African experience in resolving the conflict in the Middle East. The Committee said the briefings would enable it to formulate a response to the continuing conflict and to make recommendations to Parliament as to what action to take. The Palestinian Ambassador Mr Ali Halimeh; Israeli Ambassador, Mr Dov Segev Steinberg; Deputy Ambassador of Israel, Mr Yaakov Finkelstein; Mr Johann Marx, Chief Director of Middle East and representatives from various civil society organisations were invited.

The invited representatives agreed that the way forward was for bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine. They argued that the imposition of external solutions to the crisis could do very little in bringing about a peaceful resolution. In addition Israeli Ambassador Mr Dov Segev Steinberg
highlighted that the bid by the Palestine Government was a short cut to avoid direct negotiations with Israel.

T
he Jewish Board of Deputies noted that the many initiatives that were constantly arising to demonize Israel did not make a constructive contribution to the Peace process. These in no way encouraged the two parties to come to the table to work towards a negotiated settlement. All these initiatives did was to polarize the two sides drawing a wedge between them that made dialogue harder and harder. Examples included boycotts, sanctions, pseudo legal tribunals, Apartheid and Nazi comparisons. These did nothing more than detract from the critical objective which was to bring the parties together to find a solution for transformation.

Bridges for Peace argued that Israel was defined as the ‘other’ which illustrated the tensions that related more to the existence of Israel, rather than its behavior. Culturally and religiously, Israel was different from its neighbours, which increased the tensions regarding its existence. It was the ‘otherness’ of Israel that set it up as a scapegoat in a region that was far from perfect as illustrated by the frustration of people throughout the region and that had brought about the Arab uprisings. Decreasing the size of Israel could not reduce the irritation and the tensions.

The International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem emphasised full negotiations in which there was need for the acknowledgement and acceptance of the judicial, personal and legislative entity of each of the two sides.

The South African Zionist Federation Council
recognised the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in their own independent states, living side by side with mutual recognition. The organisation respected the Palestinian right to choose its own government and live according to its own laws and religion. The point of departure lay in the methods being used by Palestine to achieving this goal. It justified the reasons for the “anti-terrorist” fence and security checkpoints. Several interventions had aimed at increasing the Palestinian mobility in that area.
The Israeli ambassador echoed the call by his Government to have Palestine come back to the negotiating table with no preconditions. He indicated that the Palestinian bid was in direct violation of the Oslo Accord that noted that negotiations should be achieved without preconditions. In addition, the Oslo Accord had clearly stated that unilateral agreements should not change the status of the situation in the Middle East.
On the issue of Jerusalem, he indicated that his country was willing to negotiate for the exchange of land for peace. He emphasised Israel’s concerns for its security as the Palestinian Authority had signed an understanding with Hamas, an organisation that had vowed to destroy Israel and kill Jews. He referred to the 2005 instance when soon after the move out of the Gaza area, attacks where launched against Israel. It was therefore important to remember that Israel was the only Jewish country in an Arab region and therefore had to consider these security issues.

The Palestinian supporters at the meeting protested over a video submission shown by the Israeli delegation as they felt it exceeded the time allocated.

Representatives from the Egyptian Community Council of South Africa, Open Shuhada Street, Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa and Cosatu all agreed that the Palestinian
request for international recognition as a state and for full membership at the UN, was long overdue. Preconditions had to be met which included ending Israel occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands, dismantling the Israeli Apartheid Wall and recognising the fundamental rights of the Palestinian citizens to full equality. In addition, was the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. There had to be an immediate end to Israel’s illegal settlements and blockade on Gaza and an end to Israel’s discriminatory and racist policies. Peace in the area could not be achieved until these conditions were achieved.

T
he Egyptian Community in South Africa pointed to the overwhelming global support for Palestine’s UN bid. It cited research conducted by the BBC and Global Span that showed that internationally, including countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the majority of people supported the bid.

Mr Zackie Achmat
representing Open Shuhada Street and Legal Defence and Solidarity Fund made reference to Bus 198 to illustrate human rights violations in the Middle East. In drawing lessons from the South African experience, reference was made to Section III-subsections 18-24 of the Harare Declaration of August 1989, which set preconditions for the accepted negotiations at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). This was similar to the grassroots movements in Palestine, which on the basis of an armed struggle could not surrender their struggle until they had social power in the negotiations. He outlined the demands that had to be met, which included the end of the occupation of the West Bank and removal of all armed forces behind the Green Line as established by the 1967 border; the release of all political prisoners and detainees unconditionally and refraining from imposing any restriction on them; the lifting of  bans and restrictions on all proscribed and restricted organisations and persons and the ceasing of all political trials and executions.

The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa referenced a study by the HSRC (March 2010) on the conflict that it suggested the Committee read in order to come up with an informed opinion of what was happening in the Middle East. It also referred to a demonstration in March in Johannesburg were protestors were met with brutal force outside the
South African Zionist Federation office.

T
he Palestine Ambassador to South Africa said the role of the South Africa Government was vital to ending this conflict. The UN bid was a legitimate right aimed not at de-legitimizing Israel but in order to have an equal footing in negotiations. He indicated that the possible vetoing by the United States could not deter the Palestinians in their bid for full membership. The preconditions that needed to be satisfied included the halting of settlement building in the West Bank, the return of Palestinian refugees and the return of East Jerusalem as the capital of the independent state of Palestine. His country rejected the conditions set by Israel which included the demilitarisation of Palestine and the control of the Palestinian airspace by Israel. These conditions effectively made Palestine a satellite state of Israel and not an independent state.

The
Department of International Relations and Cooperation noted that the South African Government had since 1994 supported the Palestinian cause to an inalienable right of a state of its own, existing side by side with Israel in the internationally recognized borders of 1967. The relationship with Palestine dated back to the time when the Palestinian Liberation Movement fought side by side for South Africa’s own liberation. The Government believed that the solution should include the reviving of the old West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as the capital while at the same time addressing Israel’s concerns for its security and acceptance in the region as a permanent presence in the Middle East. Whatever the outcome, the South African government strongly supported the Palestinian request for international recognition as a state and for full membership at the UN. It called on the people and the government of Israel not to see this as a threat but as a way of leveling the playing field of both sides.

T
he Afro-Middle East Centre presented the often overlooked discussion around the reasons against the Palestinian bid. These included that currently there was a seat for the Palestinian leadership in the UN as an observer entity and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was recognised as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. In the event that the bid for full UN membership succeeded, the observer seat would be taken away and given to a Palestinian state, which would not represent all the Palestinian people some of whom were living as refugees in Israel. This meant that the role of the PLO seat would be greatly reduced and the concerns of these Palestinians would disappear from the agenda, as they could not have representatives in the UN. Secondly, no territorial changes could occur as occupation would continue and there would still be no recognition by Israel. The bid would likely be unsuccessful as the United States would use its veto power. It discussed some of the foreseeable implications of the failure of the bid.

T
he Afro-Middle East Centre mentioned the challenges and changes that were occurring in Palestine, Israel and the region that changed Israel’s position, indicating that the future could not continue on the same path. Some of these changes included the loss of Turkey as an ally, the democratisation of the region, the weakening of the Palestinian Authority, refusal by the youth to join a conscription army and the strengthening of a civil society in Israel. It suggested the role that the South African Government could play so that it could remain relevant to the conflict. This role was assisting in the reformation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. It also recommended South Africa follow the international trend in which it placed itself in the broader legitimising of the Muslim brotherhood and Islamic organisations in the region as these were now the forces at play in the region. Finally, the South African Government should follow a zero conflict approach in its interaction with both sides and the reconsideration of the Arab League proposal. With regard to the lessons of South Africa, it said these were misplaced, as the two conflicts were different. One of the lessons learned from CODESA was that preconditions could not be made by the dominant oppressive player.

Members asked questions about the regional organisations in that region; the historical and religious claim on Jerusalem by both Palestine and Israel; the vulnerability of Israel without a defensible borders; whether the main issue in the Middle East conflict was that of land; did either countries have the equivalent of the Freedom Charter; the human rights record of both countries.

Members of the public asked for the reason the Israel Government continued to build in settlements
in the areas where it claimed it was surrounded by hostile communities as this was counter-intuitive considering that Israel placed so much emphasis on security; said that reference should be made to the Russell Tribunal whose recommendations and findings should inform the South African decision in moving forward; while others said the Tribunal was biased; suggested the need to institute strict measures against South African companies that traded at the expense of the oppression of the Palestine people and stringent measures should be applied against South Africa citizens who served in the Israeli army.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s introductory remarks
The Chairperson stated that the theme of the symposium was: “Lessons of the South African experience, Thoughts on the Middle East including the Palestinian question and its recent bid to the United Nations for full membership”. The Chairperson welcomed the Palestinian Ambassador Mr Ali Halimeh, Israeli Ambassador Mr Dov Segev Steinberg, the Deputy Ambassador of Israel, Mr Yaakov Finkelstein, Ambassador Marx and representatives from the invited organisations. He introduced Mr Petrus de Kock, Senior Researcher at South African Institute for International Affairs as facilitator. The Chairperson acknowledged that the issue was an emotional one, however he did not expect the same situation as in a previous meeting when he had had to call for order. He expressed hope that those present could openly and constructively engage one another in a respectful manner. He hoped that the recommendations made could assist Parliament in its response to the Middle East. He mentioned that the presenters were to be strict with time allocation to allow all present to make their contributions.

Remarks by Facilitator
Mr Petrus de Kock, SAIIA Senior Researcher, thanked the Chairperson for giving the South African Institute of International Affairs an opportunity to facilitate the symposium. He added that in laying the foundation of the discussion it was important to note that in a changing world it was critical to pay attention to the economical and social dynamics of conflicts around the world, in particular the Middle East.

Jewish Board of Deputies submission
Ms Mary Kluk, National Chairman of the Jewish Board of Deputies, said that as Jewish South Africans they longed for the day when the people in Israel and Palestine could resolve their differences through meaningful dialogue so that they could live in peace side by side with secure borders. Drawing on the South African experience, she noted that transformation could only happen through negotiation in which each party at the table tried to understand the other’s insecurities and anxieties. It was through extensive interactions, dialogues, negotiations and CODESA that South Africans were able to pave a sustainable way forward.

Similar to the South African case, external influence would not bring about change in the Middle East. The many initiatives that were constantly arising to demonize Israel did not make any constructive contribution to the peace process. These initiatives in no way encouraged the parties to come to the table to work towards a negotiated settlement. All they did was to polarize the two sides drawing a wedge between them that made dialogue harder and harder. Examples included boycotts, sanctions, pseudo legal tribunals, Apartheid and Nazi comparisons. These did nothing more than detract from the critical objective which was to bring the parties together to find a solution for transformation.

She complimented the Government’s international relations and cooperation policy which did not impose solutions on other conflicts, for example, in Kenya, Sudan and the Ivory Coast. She hoped that the Government could pursue the same policy in Israel. Ms Kluk called on government to encourage the parties to work together towards building a sustainable peace in which the two-state solution was completed with a viable Palestinian state existing side by side with the Jewish state as its neighbour.

Bridges for Peace submission
Mr Chris Eden in his introductory statement thanked the Committee for reframing the title of the symposium, as he believed it provided a more useful framework within which to work. He added that his organisation represented a position on Israel that was common among Christians and Jews that would describe themselves as “Bible-believing”. Their faith was based on an expectation of the literal fulfillment of undertakings recorded in the Bible. A large proportion of Christians in South Africa and indeed Africa would count themselves as a part of this community. He emphasised that the practical expectation related to their day-to-day existence and not just as far as the destiny of Israel and the Jewish people was concerned. Members should not construe this position as one that devalued any of the other players on this dramatic stage.

He argued that Israel was to be defined as the “other” which illustrated the tensions that related more to the existence of Israel, rather than its behavior. He gave a description of Israel’s geopolitical position, which was surrounded by a prevailing Arab culture in the region. Therefore it was culturally different to its immediate neighbours. The League of Arab States comprised 22 members, and had a population of 360 million and a landmass of 14 million km². Israel’s land represented one eighth of this area.
Secondly, with considerable overlaps, Israel was located within a region that was overwhelmingly Islamic. Once again Israel divided this world into eastern and western sectors. There was a further tension in the case of Israel. Prevailing Islamic interpretation determined that land once ruled by Islam became a part of the collective that had changed its status. Israel was once part of this collective and pressure existed to return it to the collective.

Mr Eden noted that while Israel was accused of being too big, it was precisely because it was so small relative to these two collectives that it caused tension and in fact, halving Israel’s size would only add to this phenomenon and not decrease the irritation.

Mr Eden pointed out the challenges that it presented in the region, which includes its democratic society in comparison to the other States which until the “Arab Spring” consisted of entrenched leaders such as Libya, Egypt, and Jordan. In addition, economically Israel was outperforming its neighbors in terms of its GDP. Similar disparities existed in areas such as opportunities for women, absorption of refugees, education and minority rights.

Mr Eden concluded by stating that if Israel were the 23rd member of the League of Arab States and the 58th member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, if the minorities in question were Christians, Kurds or even Bahia’s and if every accusation leveled against Israel today was evident in this ‘make-believe state’, then he believed that neither the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation, COSATU, Arch-Bishop Emmeritus Tutu or even the Russell Tribunal would have been on the frontlines of this battle. It was the “otherness” of Israel that set it up as a scapegoat in a region that was far from perfect as illustrated by the frustration of people throughout the region and that had brought about the Arab uprisings.

International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem (ICEJ) submission
Mr Dave Wilken, ICEJ National Director and Chairperson, noted that Palestine’s bid for full membership without being declared a state did not comply with the core principles and constitution of the United Nations as a legal body that represented independent states.

ICEJ supported full negotiations in which there was need for the acknowledgement and acceptance of the judicial, personal and legislative entity of each of the two sides. Drawing on lessons from the South African experience, he referred to the CODESA negotiations of 1993 which led to the birth of the South African democracy and said it was comprehensive and inclusive of all the political players and interest groups. This produced a structural bilateral agreement in which a solution was paved out. This was similar to the case of Israel and Palestine in which a unilateral approach would fail.

South Africa Zionist Federation (SAZF) submission
Mr Ben Levitas, SAZF Chairman (Cape Council), said SAZF re
cognised the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in their own independent states, living side by side with mutual recognition. His organisation respected the Palestinian right to choose their own government and live according to their own laws and religion. Israel desired the same. Moreover Israel’s Declaration of Independence protected the rights of minorities and of all religions. These rights were also protected by the government and its Supreme Court. While the organisation supported the notion of Palestinian independence, it did not support the way Palestine was resolving the conflict by going to the UN while core issues were unresolved such as the borders, the refugees on both sides, mutual recognition and the right for Jews to live in Palestine. Instead this could result in the conflict intensifying.

The submission outlined the demographic and multi cultural nature of the population in Israel which consisted of 7.8
million people - 75.5 percent were Jews, 20.2 percent were Arabs (mostly Muslim) and the remaining 4.3 percent comprised Druze, Circassians, and others not classified by religion.

Mr Levitas explained that fence, as an anti-terrorist fence, had been vital, urgent and a critical imperative, in order to save civilian lives of both Israelis and Palestinians as it had dramatically reduced the number of successful terrorist attacks in those areas in which it has been completed. It was a direct response to terrorist attacks, targeting civilians on public transportation, coffee shops, shopping centres, dance clubs, local pubs, and public places. These terrorist attacks not only destroyed human lives but had also been affecting the economy.

He reminded the Members of what had happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in the hope that this could lead to a two-state peace agreement. Rockets had been fired from Gaza targeted at Israel to cause maximum civilian casualties. Iran-backed Hamas was building up its military capability; particularly through weapons smuggling via Sinai to attack Israel and in recent years Hamas had extended the range of its rockets.

He went on to outline the assistance of Israel in the area which included 50,000 tons of goods, including humanitarian aid, medicine and medical supplies transferred via Gaza biweekly in 2010. This exceeded
the 40,000 tons Israel told the Quartet on the Middle East Envoy it would transfer. Israel had also built new platforms for grains, wheat, raw materials and other aggregates at the Kerem Shalom border-crossing despite the fact that it was a Hamas-target. In addition to accelerating the flow of construction materials to Gaza, Israel received 1 500 applications from Gaza civilians for healthcare in Israel since the start of 2011, representing a 63% increase from 2010. Eighty percent of the applicants were approved. Israel also provided electricity and water to Gaza civilians. Thirty-seven educational facilities, 14 health centres and 13 agricultural units were currently being developed in Gaza. Iran-backed Hamas profited from trade through the tunnels. Since Hamas did not benefit financially from goods Israel supplied through these crossings, it targeted them. Hamas therefore, made it difficult for Israel to deliver items to Gaza’s civilian population

Mr Levitas outlined the various efforts put in place by Israel to enable Palestinian mobility. Security check points were necessary in order to protect all of its citizens – Muslims, Christians and Jews – from decades of attacks by Palestinian terrorists. Israel had implemented a system of security checkpoints and roadblocks to prevent terrorists from infiltrating Israel. While being an inconvenience to Palestinians, checkpoints had helped reduce the number of deaths from suicide bombings from 142 deaths in 2003 to a total of 3 in 2007.

In addition, in the past 18 months, the IDF (Israel Defence Force) had improved the ability of Palestinians to move freely in the West Bank. Examples included the removal of more than 140 temporary roadblocks and 19 manned checkpoints. Israel had also undertaken a number of security measures aimed at limiting the IDF presence in the West Bank and placing greater responsibility for security on the Palestinians. Examples include IDF’s decreased presence in four Palestinian cities: Bethlehem, Jericho, Qalqiliya and Ramallah and giving Palestinian security services more responsibility for stopping terrorist activity. Security cooperation between the IDF and the Palestinian security services increased in 2008. More than 240 coordinated meetings had taken place between the two sides at division, brigade and liaison office levels.

Egyptian Community in South Africa submission
Mr Nottieh Assaf, organisation spokesperson, pointed out two essential questions arising from the Palestinian proposal for membership. Did Palestine have the right to self determination, and why now? The answer to the first was that it had been long overdue on the part of the international community to recognise Palestine as a full member and its right to self determination as Palestine met most, if not all, the requirements. In response to the second question, he stated that there was generally an overwhelming support in the international community for the proposal of an independent Palestinian state. He mentioned that 128 states which covered 75% of the global population recognised Palestine as an independent state. He pointed out that a survey conducted by BBC and Global Scan showed that internationally, including countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the majority of people supported the UN bid. In addition, the Oslo Accord had resolved that a five-year negotiation period should resolve the conflict to establishing an independent Israel as the land occupied in 1967. However, Israel had destroyed every possible attempt to reach an agreement with Palestine. Since the settlement, every elected Government had continued to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. This had affected the economic livelihoods of Palestinians in that area as their land has been taken away from them. It also had resulted in families and villages being separated from each other through the construction the Apartheid wall.

He concluded by noting that whatever the Israelis tried to propagate, they would fail as history always proved that the just win. He cited Desmond Tutu’s words, “if you are neutral in a situation of injustice you are choosing the side of the oppressor”

Open Shuhada Street /
Legal Defense and Solidarity Fund submission
Mr Zackie Achmat, representing these organisations, made reference to Bus 198 to illustrate the situation in the settlements where seven Palestinians tried to board an Israeli bus resulting in their brutal arrest at the border post. Drawing on the South African experience, he reminded Members that the period prior to the SA negotiations was characterized by a revolution reference was made to Section III – subsections 18 to 24 – of the Harare Declaration of August 1989, which set preconditions to the accepted negotiations at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). This was similar to the grassroots movements in Palestine, which on the basis of an armed struggle could not surrender their struggle until they had social power in the negotiations. He outlined the demands that had to be met, which included the end of the occupation of the West Bank and removal of all armed forces behind the Green Line as established by the 1967 border; the release of all political prisoners and detainees unconditionally and refraining from imposing any restriction on them; the lifting of all bans and restrictions on all proscribed and restricted organisations and persons and the ceasing of all political trials and executions. Israel did not carry out the death sentence, it bombed people instead. Mr Achmat said these measures were necessary to produce the conditions in which free political discussion could take place which was essential in ensuring that the people themselves participated in the process of remaking in their country. He made allowances for the bombings by the Palestinians but noted that if negotiations were authentic that was the way forward.

Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa submission
Mr Zahid Asmal referred to Ms Kluk who had eloquently mentioned that the solution should be found by each party embracing each other, Mr Levitas who had given the facts on the ground and finally the Bridges of Peace that neglected to speak about peace. Having experienced the same struggle, the South African Government needed to support any intervention that sought to end the suffering of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people had been trying to negotiate but had been met with no sincerity on the part of Israel. He referred the Committee to a March 2010 study by the Human Science Research Council (HSRC) which could assist them in making recommendations. The outstanding Middle East problem had come to “roost” and growing mass demonstrations indicated a favourable outcome. He referred to a demonstration in March in Johannesburg where protesters were met by brutal force outside the South African Zionist Federation office. Such an event illustrated that there could be no peace without justice.

Cosatu submission
MrTahir Sema, Convenor for Cosatu’s Coalition for a Free Palestine, said Cosatu supported the principles articulated by the Palestinian political and civil organizations and several long standing UN Resolutions. It called for the ending of the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands, the dismantling of the Israeli Apartheid Wall, recognition of the fundamental right of Palestinian citizens to equality, Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes and properties, there had to be an immediate end to Israel’s illegal settlements and blockade on Gaza and an end to Israel’s discriminatory and racist policies. These were non-negotiable and he called on the Government to have a single unified voice in addressing the issue. He referred to the important recommendations of the Russell Tribunal’s international jurists who had deliberated two weeks before on the same topic, and which should not go unnoticed. Mr Sema called on Members to take the Palestinian issue to the National Assembly and the Pan African Parliament where it should be debated in order to have a single voice as Africans and make a difference. He called on the Members present that had played a significant role in liberating South African, to do the same for the Palestinians.

Address by the Ambassador of Palestine: His Excellency Mr Ali Halimeh
Mr Ali Halimeh, Ambassador of Palestine, said South Africa played a significant and vital role in promoting political stability and peace in the region. Palestinian leadership with the support of the people had taken the issue of Palestine and its status to the heart of the world community, the UN. This was vital as it was Palestine’s right to have full membership.

He did not understand why the Israeli Government found it hard to accept their bid. UNESCO supported  Palestine’s bid to join the UN. The motivation for the bid was the right of the Palestinian people to self determination and support of the international community. If Israel was a member, what should prevent Palestine from becoming a member also? He rejected the argument that Palestine did not have land as Palestine had the land which was being abused and occupied by Israel. He noted that 107 countries supported the Palestinian bid for the admission to UNESCO and more would support its bid to join the UN. In the event that the United States vetoed the bid, it would not deter their efforts from pursuing that goal until they were admitted. The bid was a legitimate exercise which they were implementing.

Mr Halimeh pointed out that if Israel considered the Palestinians as partners he did not understand why they rejected this bid which could place Palestine on an equal footing in negotiating. The United States allying with Israel did no bring about peace.

Negotiations were not possible while Israel continued to grab land and build settlements in the heart of the land of Palestine. Israeli conditions for an independent Palestinian state - which included demilitarisation with no capacity to defend itself and the President of Israel controlling Palestinian space - was unacceptable. Peace and building an independent state required that Israel became more transparent.

Mr Halimeh noted the irony that Israel was the only country to emerge out of an UN resolution yet it was the only country that did not respect UN resolutions. Palestine had the right to be a sovereign state. The bid was not an attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel but was intended to strengthen and consolidate the political settlement based on the UN resolution.

He noted that negotiations could not continue if Israel continued building settlements and the issue of East Jerusalem was resolved. No Palestinian President could abandon East Jerusalem as it formed part of the land captured in 1967. There could be no Palestine without East Jerusalem as a capital, as it had historical and religious claims to the area. The Palestinian people were not foreigners to the land but were its indigenous people. If Israel had concerns, these could be discussed but the way forward was to have the Israel Prime Minister make a public commitment agreeing to the borders of 1967.

Address by the Ambassador of Israel: His Excellency Mr Dov Segev Steinberg
The Ambassador of Israel: His Excellency Mr Dov Segev Steinberg, said the situation in the Middle East did not make sense at first glance as both Israel and Palestine had stated that they supported a two state solution. The difference in these seemingly identical positions lay in the means with which the goal was to be achieved. There was a gap between a state with peace and that without peace. The future relations between the two countries lay in that gap as the critical question and major consideration was whether Palestine was going to have a country in which they could launch further attacks on Israel or would they be able to build a state in which they lived in peaceful coexistence with their neighbours.

He repeated his government’s call for Palestine to return to the table without preconditions so that a genuine and lasting resolution could be found. Direct and comprehensive negotiations remained the only means to resolve the complex issue surrounding the new state.

Mr Steinberg said that Palestine was not interested in negotiations as shown in the ever growing preconditions every time negotiations were set to resume. This was illustrated by the unforeseen turn of events of for example before talks began, Israel had to re-establish the 1949 ceasefire lines wrongly represented as the 1967 borders of the future Palestinian state. And recently there was a press release stating an additional condition which called for the release of convicted Palestinian prisoners. The Israel Government viewed this as a strategy for avoiding direct negotiations.

With regard to the UN bid, he said that Palestine intended to bypass Israel without talks. Palestine was wrongfully seeking a solution from outside in which history had shown, even in the case of South Africa, could not work. The orchestrated bid was a direct violation of the Oslo Accord which strictly forbade unilateral action to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr Steinberg appealed for South Africa in the name of peace to reject those unilateral actions. He rejected the reason given by the Palestinians that the settlements issue was the reason that negotiations had ceased. He reminded Members that Palestine had been waging war even before a single settlement had been built on the West Bank and cited the attacks by Hamas the previous night on citizens in Southern Israel. He also pointed to the Palestinian Government entering into an agreement with Hamas, an organisation which had called for the destruction of Israel and the killing of the Jews.

The Israel delegation then presented a video clip illustrating the security issues that Israel had to consider regarding the establishment of a new Palestinian state. The video recording explained the vulnerability of Israelis and its need for defensible borders. However, there was uproar from Palestinian supporters who stated that enough time had been given to showing the video clip.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation in South Africa comments
Mr Johann Marx, the Department’s Chief Director: Middle East, spoke on behalf of the Minister. He noted that the government had since 1994 supported the Palestine cause for the right of a state of its own existing side by side with Israel within internationally recognized borders. The relationship with Palestine dated back to the time when the Palestinian Liberation Movement fought side by side for South Africa’s own liberation. The Government believed that the solution should include the reviving of the old West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as the capital while at the same time addressing Israel’s concerns for its security and acceptance in the region as a permanent presence in the Middle East. Whatever the outcome, the South African government strongly supported the Palestinian request for international recognition as a state and for full membership at the UN. It called on the people and the government of Israel not to see this as a threat but as a way of leveling the playing field of both sides.
 
Mr Marx noted that the significant difference from the South African experience was that it was not burdened by the hundreds and thousands of years of two religions, Judaism and Islam. It was not for the international community to prescribe solutions but to offer full support for the common endeavor to arrive successfully at the envisioned destination.

Ambassador Marx added that the key to successful negotiations was to ensure that all stakeholders where included. Since the Oslo Accord no real trust had been developed as some parties and factions were pursuing goals seen as unrealistic by the international community, that winner-takes-all. Compromise was the only possible way of leveling the playing field. This was the case in South Africa at the beginning of the negotiations as preconditions (the unbanning of national liberation movements and ending the incarceration and release of the leaders such as Nelson Mandela) were put in place.

He noted that negotiations between equals were only possible if the dominating party was dismantled. This was not the case as the Israel army continued to occupy the West Bank and establish checkpoints in which individual Palestinians underwent daily humiliation creating resentment in successive generations.
Ambassador Marx reiterated that the refusal to halt Israel’s expansion of settlements in the West Bank had deterred talks and led to the Palestinian Authority approaching the United Nations. It was clear that the United States would use its veto power on this issue. The alternative was to approach the UN General Assembly for non member observer status as currently enjoyed by the Vatican.

Whatever the outcome, the South African government strongly supported the Palestinian request for international recognition as a state and for full membership at the UN. He called on the people and the government of Israel not to see it as a threat but as a way of leveling the playing field of both sides.
In conclusion, if the majority of Israelis realised that they were no longer occupying disputed territory but the  land of an internationally recognized state, they would see the serious need to restart negotiations with their Palestinian partner.

Afro-Middle East Centre keynote address
Mr Naeem Jeenah, Director: Afro-Middle East Centre, stated that the response to his presentation could be unanimous as both parties would not like what he had to say. He noted that while a lot of the debate around the bid, especially among the main Palestinian Government, supported the bid, there was little discussion around the Palestinian view against the bid. The bid was viewed negatively by some civil society organisations. He outlined the following reasons: currently there was a seat for the Palestinian leadership in the UN as an observer entity and the PLO was recognised as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. In the event that the bid for full UN membership succeeded, the observer seat would be taken away and given to a Palestinian state, which would not represent all the Palestinian people, some of whom were living as refugees in Israel. This meant that the role of the PLO seat could be greatly reduced and the concerns of these Palestinians could disappear from the agenda, as they could not have representatives in the UN. Secondly, no territorial changes would occur as occupation would continue and there would still be no recognition by Israel. Mr Jeenah stated that the bid could not succeed as the nine votes would not be attained in the event that the United States used its veto power.

Foreseeable implications of the failure of the UN bid were that the United States would reduce funds to the Palestinian authority. In addition, Israel had started withholding custom duties and tax on Palestinian goods. Therefore, whether the bid was successful or not each outcome had separate challenges. Mr Jeenah pointed out the challenges and changes that were currently occurring in Palestine, Israel and in the region that spelled the end of an era and the beginning of another. In Palestine these challenges included the collapse of the Palestine Authority and replacement by Hamas, which won the 2006 parliamentary elections. While in the case of Israel, these challenges included demonstrations and protests by civil society organisations. Furthermore, there was an increasing refusal by young people to serve in the Israeli conscription army. In addition, the political shift in the Palestinian balance of power weakened the dialogue with Israel and the loss of Turkey as an ally was cited as a challenge to Israel. Political changes in the region were seen during the Arab Spring, in which the Israeli ambassadors in both Egypt and Jordan were forced to flee. It was unclear what the future policy towards Israel would be for each of these countries. All of these factors placed Israel in a very different position than a year ago, indicating that the future could not continue on the same path but was taking on a different trajectory.

In order to remain relevant in the Middle East, the South African Government needed to respond by dismissing the notion that it could act as a mediator. One party in the conflict was supported by a super-power and therefore did not need South Africa’s support. South Africa’s focus needed to be on Palestine rather than mediating. The critical areas in which the Government could play a relevant part included assisting in the reformation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The South African Government also needed to remain a friend of the Palestinian people rather than of a political faction or party in Palestine. He also recommended that the South African Government needed to have a value-based, interest-driven policy in the Middle East with a multi-polar approach. South Africa needed to listen to both sides, even though Israel was seen as an extremist government.

Mr Jeenah recommended that South Africa follow the growing international trend, in which it placed itself in the broader legitimising of the Muslim brotherhood and Islamic organisations in the region, as these were now the forces at play in the region. The United States had already taken the lead. Mr Jeenah also noted the need for the South African Government to maintain zero conflict with regards to the factions in Palestine and Israel. This did not mean condoning political violence committed by these parties, but it would ensure that South Africa was in a position to navigate and negotiate the religious and sectoral divides in the region. He added that the South African Government needed to re-look at the Arab League proposal for the way forward.

Mr Jeenah noted that applying lessons learned from the South African experience to the Middle East was misplaced and Israel-Palestine was nowhere near the level of negotiations that South Africa had during 1990-1994. However one of the lessons learned from CODESA was that preconditions cannot be made by the dominant oppressive player. Mr Jeenah also reminded Members that South Africa’s own struggle was revolutionary and not passive.

Discussion
Mr K Mubu (DA) asked about the role of regional organisations present in the region in dealing with the conflict.

Mr Jeenah replied that the main regional league was the Arab League and the response over the past 60 years had been varied, at times being militant. The most recent political response was the Arab League Initiative which provided a road map in moving forward. The South African Government should re-look at the initiative in determining its response. Beyond that, the Arab League was quite “hamstrung” on issues with Israel. Just like the South African Government in the 1970 and 80s and the OAU, similarly was the case with Israel.

Mr Steinberg reiterated that the main regional league was the Arab League but unfortunately it did not recognise Israel as one of its members. Therefore, Israel could not refer to the organisation as a regional one.

Mr Halimeh confirmed that the regional organisation was the Arab League based in Cairo of which Palestine had a permanent seat. Israel claimed that it was not an Arab country, but Jewish, and therefore was not interested in joining the league.

Mr Mubu noted that the forthcoming trip to the Middle East could give the Committee a more balanced perspective of the conflict. It presented Members with an opportunity to see both sides of the story.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked which document in both countries was equivalent to the Freedom Charter and she asked about their human rights records.

Mr Steinberg replied that Israel respected human rights. With regard to Palestinian prisoners, they had full rights including visitation rights. This was unfortunately not the case with Palestine where Israel prisoners were denied the same.

Mr Halimeh replied that Palestine had the PLO Charter, announced in 1964, created to represent the interests of the Palestine people throughout the world. It was recognised even if Mr Jeenah had been critical of the organisation in suggesting that it was no longer in existence. He conceded that there was need to strengthen the organisation and look at its performance and assist it. He hoped that Hamas would become a member of the PLO soon. The Palestinians fully adhered to the human rights of others and those of their people. He pointed out the issue was their rights were being violated by the state of Israel which continued its occupation and denied them the right to self determination, which was a violation of their human rights.

Mr Steinberg replied that with regard to human rights and human rights organizations one of the personalities that was a member of the International Human Rights Council was Muammar Gaddafi and therefore he did not have to elaborate further.

Ms Dudley asked if South Africa took a less partisan view of what could be its impact on the conflict.

Ms Steinberg replied that Israel had many points on which it was in agreement with the South African Government which included the two state solution and the view that the two sides had to reach a solution through peaceful negotiation. On other areas, there were differences in views which were legitimate given that everyone was entitled to their own view. However, on the whole the Israeli government had mentioned the South African way of conflict resolution through negotiation.

Ms Dudley asked about the vulnerability of the lives of people living in Israel and how seriously these threats impacted on their daily lives.

Mr Steinberg replied that the issue of security had to be taken into consideration as the proposal suggested a new Palestinian state would mean that the border could be a mere nine kilometres away, therefore increasing its vulnerability to attacks.

Ms C September (ANC) noted that she appreciated the submission given by Mr Jeenah but asked for clarity about his reference to South Africa as a super power.

Mr Jeenah replied that he had mentioned in the submission that it was good to note that South Africa no longer deceived itself about being a mediator as it was not a super power. The relevant role it could play was to assist in the reformation of the PLO.

Ms September thanked Mr Jeenah for correcting the view of South Africa history which was in fact a struggle and revolutionary. It was disheartening to hear accounts that were selective in their interpretation of the past.

Ms September asked if the real Middle East question was not the issue of land more than anything else.

Mr Steinberg replied that Israel had made it clear that it was willing to negotiate land for peace and it had examples in the past were Israel had signed a peace agreement with Egypt and given Egypt all its land for peace. He pointed out that Israel was ready to discuss the same with Palestine. The main obstacle as shown in the video submission was the security issue on the disputed narrow piece of land. Israel was the only Jewish country in the world and if they did not take rightful precautions, it could be the end of Israel.

Mr Steinberg reminded Members of what happened in 2005 when Israel pulled out completely from Gaza and a “radical right wing” government had emerged, resulting in missile attacks into the southern part of Israel. Security issues where imperative.

Mr Halimeh replied that central to the conflict was the issue of land. He explained the sacredness of land to the Palestinian people.

A Member asked for clarification of how Palestinian UN membership was good for Israel as noted by Mr Halimeh. What was both of their understanding of this statement?

Mr Steinberg replied that Israel would like to see Palestine as a member of the UN; however it had to be done in proper way. This included reaching a peace agreement with Israel. In such an event, Israel would be the first to support the proposal.

Mr Halimeh replied that “same” status was an advantage as both parties could negotiate on an equal footing and, in his view, this could strengthen and consolidate a political settlement in the Middle East. It was a legitimate right for any nation to seek membership at the UN and their presence at the UN meant recognition by the international community for the Palestinian right to self determination.

A Member asked about the religious claim of both of religions to Jerusalem.

Mr Steinberg replied that everything was negotiable. During the 2000 negotiations, when Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met in the United States, Jerusalem was, for the first time in Israel’s history, placed as a concession in the negotiations. But the response from the other side had been negative. The process had to be done through dialogue and in a peaceful way.

Mr Halimeh replied that while Israel always claimed that Jerusalem was its holy land and that it had religious and historical significance, the same could be said about Palestine as Jerusalem had some important Muslim historic and religious sites. Both Palestinian Christians and Muslims had a right to those sites. One could not be considered at the expense of the other. Everyone had the right to live in that part of the land; it was not be exclusively reserved for a particular group.

A member of the audience referred to the Russell Tribunal recently convened in South Africa. The findings of the tribunal suggested that Israel was in direct violation of the international crime of apartheid. The findings and recommendations of the Russell Tribunal should inform the Government’s decision in the implementation of its policy stance towards the Middle East.

Another member of the audience said that from a legal perspective, the Russell Tribunal did not present a balanced view of the situation in the Middle East. He felt that it had been one sided and had not presented an accurate portrayal of the events on the ground. There was need for constructive equal engagement with each of the two sides.

A member of the audience asked for reasons why the Israeli Government continued to build in the areas where it claimed it was surrounded by hostile communities. This was counter-intuitive considering that Israel placed so much emphasis on security.

A member of the audience noted the need to pass stringent measures against South African companies that traded and supported the oppression of the Palestinian people. This should also apply to South African citizens that served in the Israeli army.

Ms L Jacobus gave a vote of thanks on behalf of the Members, saying the symposium was one of many such engagements where the opinions of different interest groups were sought and discussed. These engagements were similar to what they hoped to see happen in the case of Israel and Palestine.

The Chairperson said the Committee would convene the next week to deliberate on the issues that had been discussed and chart a way forward. Parliamentary meetings were public and therefore everyone was invited to attend.

Meeting adjourned.

 

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: