Briefing by Palestinian Ambassador

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
26 June 2002
BRIEFING BY PALESTINIAN AMBASSADOR

Chairperson: Mr P Jordan (ANC)

SUMMARY
The Palestinian Ambassador briefed the Committee on the conflict in Israel/Palestine. The Palestinian authorities condemned all suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against individuals and the State. He emphasised the need for elections to be held in Palestine under the supervision of the international community and called for Israel to respect the result of the elections. He criticised Israel for their human rights violations against the Palestinians and the US for their support of Israel. The Palestinian solution was for a two-State plan with the co-existence of both Israeli and Palestinian states.

MINUTES
The Chair explained that the original intention had been to have two successive meetings on the same day with first the Israeli and then the Palestinian Ambassador, however the death of a relative of the Israeli Ambassador in a recent suicide bombing precluded her appearing before the Committee.

He introduced the Palestinian Ambassador, Mr E L Herfi.

Briefing
The Ambassador extended his condolences to the Israeli Ambassador and to all those fallen amongst both the Israelis and Palestinians. Both groups were the victims of a war that the PLO hoped to put an end to. He recalled appearing before the Committee in 1996 with the then Israeli Ambassador because they had both belonged to the peace camp. During that meeting, the Israeli Ambassador had announced his resignation due to the take over by the right wing government in Israel. The Israeli Ambassador had then returned to Israel to join the peace movement. Since the loss of Prime Minister Rabin, greater difficulties were being faced because Israeli decision-makers did neither respect nor implement they agreements they signed.

In 1999, President Clinton had proposed a 3-Head of State Summit, however Mr Arafat had written reply explaining that he did not think the time mature enough to hold such a summit because the conditions were not there to reach an agreement. Since May 1999, the Israelis had been amassing their forces and misinforming public opinion.

The Ambassador likened the Palestinian territory to eight Robben Island type occupied areas in the West Bank and four in the Gaza strip, which were dared to call a "state". Entry into Palestinian areas were cordoned off and blockaded with alert stations, with no unity between the "Robben islands", geographically or otherwise. The area was such that no Palestinian leader would call it a State. If South Africa would not accept the Banustan provinces, he questioned why the Palestinians should accept a divided Palestine, which was the reason for the Palestinians not agreeing to the Summit. While in South Africa all parties had worked together to compound the positive and eliminate the negative, the Israelis chose rather to always try to weaken the PLO by destroying police stations, infrastructure and the national authority and thereafter argue that Palestine did not do enough to eliminate terrorism. He questioned how it was possible for an attempt to be made to combat terrorism when the Palestinian police and soldiers were being killed. He felt the aim of the Israelis was to destroy Palestinian authority and not to reach peace with the Palestinian people.

Concerning elections, he said that the idea was very welcome and recalled the elections held in 1996 when 40 South African Members of Parliament had been present as observers. The intention had been to hold elections in 1999, when the parliament needed to be renewed, but do to events, the Palestinians had not been allowed to organise the elections. He believed it impossible to hold free and fair elections when the movement of people was so severely restricted. He asked that South Africa put pressure on Israel and the US to allow free and fair elections amongst the Palestinians and to respect the result.

He said that while the US and Israel called those who resisted the occupation terrorists, in terms of the UN Charter the Palestinians had the right in international law to resist the occupation. However, the PLO condemned suicide bombers and all acts of terrorism.

Discussion
A member noted that there was an enormous disparity between the military capabilities of Israel and Palestine and asked if the solution therefore lay in international intervention. He inquired as to the current prospects for such an intervention and the possibilities for mobilising European public opinion. Concerning the Palestinian / Israeli peace coalition, he suggested that middle ground be found that could be used to breach the divide between the two camps.

Mr E Sigwela (ANC) questioned how much of Israel's rigidity was fuelled by the dream that the land of Isreal was their God-given right. He asked if there was a specific proposal that could be made to the international community.

Mr Geldenhuys (NNP) stated that the NNP fully supported the idea of an unconditional Palestinian State. While the Palestinians were freedom fighters, he pointed out that the second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions clearly forbids acts against civilians and in terms of which suicide bombers were clearly terrorists. He felt that the root of the problem lay with Israel's neighbouring states, which did not accept the right of existence of the State of Israel. Bearing this mind, he questioned the commitment of the Arab States to the Arab League Plan. He also questioned the willingness of Hamaas and the Arab Jihad to accept a peace agreement, should one be reached.

A member found it odd that Israel supported the US's condemnation of terrorism following the September 11^th attacks and yet continued to attack the Palestinian government and people. He inquired as to the Palestinian definition of terrorism.

The Ambassador said, concerning the EU position, that the EU stood with the rest of the world against the US and Israel. Not for the first time, the US position was being criticised for being illogical. Since the US position was clearly the same as that of the Israelis, he did not consider them to be honest brokers and believed them to be preventing the international community from finding a solution. Lately, there had been some flexibility within the US to give some role to the EU as well as the UN and Russia. He had full confidence in the UN to find a solution to impose on both parties, but felt that it was entirely up to Israel to respect the agreement. Palestine respected and implemented agreements and asked the same of Israel.

He continued that there was an Israeli and Palestinian peace camp and they had met in Cape Town at Spier the previous year. An agreement had been signed and idea had been exchanged. The problem was that the Israeli peace camp was very weak. In addition, the Israeli government was trying to weaken it even more. However, hope had never been lost and the peace camp was being worked with daily. A small minority of the right wing would not be allowed to hijackt he future of the two peoples.

Concerning the Israeli belief that the land is their God-given right, he said that Israel is the only State in the world without a Constitution and no defined border, although the concept of secure borders was always being talked of.

The time was right for elections but the Palestinians would like free and fair elections to be observed by the international community and that why an international presence had been called for in the West Bank and Gaza. More than 20 000 Palestinians had been arbitrarily arrested by the Israelis and none of them had been brought before any form of court. Even Israeli NGO's had been critical of this.

The Palestinian policy was against any act of terror in all forms and whether aimed at individuals or the State. Terror was terror and was condemned by the Palestinian leadership, the PLO and the Palestinian authority. He emphasised that this was their actual policy and not merely an exercise in public relations. Their struggle was believed to be a just one and therefore without need for such criminal acts to justify their goal. As a result, the Palestinian president had condemned every suicide bombing.

Palestine's proposal, since 1974, had been for a 2-State solution. Since that time the Palestinians had agreed to share the area of Palestine with Israel, however Israel had insisted on taking the entire area. Israel is the only State to have been created by the UN - in terms of UN Resolution 181 - but it was the only State in the world which did not respect UN Resolutions.

Regarding the Arab States, he said that at the last summit held in Beirut, all 22 Arab nations had recognised the existence of the State of Israel and had proposed the Arab League Plan, which recognised fully the State of Israel. Unfortunately, the following day Israel chose to invade all Palestinian territories. While all Arab countries were willing to respect the plan, President Bush chose to ignore it.

Hamaas, he said, was not a super-power. Palestinian society was not religious in the sense that it respected all religions and was very open-minded. He claimed that it Hamaas had been created by Israeli Generals who had also supported the suicide bombers so that they would have someone to blame in order to be able to destroy the Palestinian authority. He questioned who had granted the suicide bombers the permission to by-pass the security checks.

After September 11^th, things had changed. A coalition had been formed against terrorism but he raised the issue of the lack of a definition of terrorism. Freedom fighters could not be labelled as terrorists when they had the right to resist occupation in terms of the UN Charter.

Mr Ramgobin (ANC) said that he was happy to hear of Palestine being a secular state and asked the Ambassador if he felt that US involvement in the conflict was a problem in itself.

Ms Hajaij (ANC) felt that unless the US and the present Israeli government were serious about peace a resolution would not be found. An impasse had been reached and she believed the UN and the EU to be unwilling to do anything. She did not see how the conflict could be resolved, as fundamentally there was no wish to succeed on behalf of the Israelis.

Ms Mahomed (ANC) asked for comment on the role that international organisations, such as NAM, could play in assisting in the process.

Mr Sithole (ANC) asked to what extent has the US interest in oil compromised the existence of Palestine and the conflict in Afghanistan. He asked to what extent South Africa has fitted in with Israel's ideology. He inquired if the Ambassador would share with the Jewish Board in the South Africa the opinion of the Palestinian people on a formal basis.

The Ambassador replied that the problem with the US was that they had given the Israelis a 100 day mandate to eliminate terrorism, however the mandate had continued to be extended after the period had elapsed. Furthermore the US had not condemned Jenin and other massacres because they themselves had committed hundreds of war crimes, which was also the reason for the US not acceding to the Rome State for the International Criminal Court.

Palestine was doing its best to prepare for elections. On that day Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aziz Pahad had entered Palestine on a humanitarian mission. The Palestinians had struggled for three weeks to arrange the visit and were still unsure if Mr Pahad would be able to meet Mr Arafat.

The UN as well as NAM and the Arab League played an important role in the situation. Without the support of the international community, Israel would have committed crimes in silence. He believed the Israelis to be working not for peace but for the elimination of Palestinian civilians.

He believed Israel to be the cheapest base for the US to protect their interests not only in petrol but in the petrol dollar. In explaining the concept of the petrol dollar he said that 95% of the revenue from petrol was invested in the US and the EU. Nothing was manufactured in the Arab States, as all their factories were overseas. He believed that the US wanted the situation to continue existing. Although the US appeared concerned about leadership and democracy in Palestine, they seemed unconcerned about democracy in the other Arab States.

The Ambassador said that he was ready to attend any meeting organised with the Jewish Community and that he had already been to several.

Adv Madasa (ACDP) asked who on both sides were waging the war.

Mr Eglin (DP) noted his party's acceptance that the Palestinians are entitled to enjoy sovereignty as a practical right of its people. He asked if a sufficient initiative had been taken by the Palestinians and Israelis to deal with the issue of security from the side of the Israelis.

A member asked if Osama Bin Laden exists.

The Ambassador said that while the Palestinian people were the victims of war, the Israeli people had also been the victims of war. However, it was the Israeli policy to victimise the Palestinians, of whom two generations had grown up under occupation.

Regarding the security of Israel, he said that it appeared as though Israel was the only State concerned. He questioned who was being threatened by whom and indicated that Palestine was in a much weaker position as far as arms and territory were concerned - Palestine consisted of only 20% of Israel.

The Palestinians were ready to accept any proposal for the protection of the State of Israel and there was no Arab State that did not accept the Arab plan.
Osama Bin Laden, he said, existed and was under US protection as it had been them who had armed and protected him to fight in Afghanistan against the former USSR. He thought it possible that the US had trained him in other ways. He condemned his actions and said that Bin Laden hd never fought for Palestine or supported them financially, although he had been a supporter of Israel.

There Chair thanked the Ambassador for appearing before the Committee and said that South Africa had a keen interest in justice and equity in the world and would like to see a solution for both the Palestinian and Israeli people. The position of the South African government was clear: there would be no solution to the problem without protection to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. This was also, with some reservations, the viewpoint of the South African Parliament.

Meeting adjourned.