Middle East: briefing by Israeli ambassador

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 August 2002
MIDDLE EAST: BRIEFING BY ISRAELI AMBASSADOR

Chairperson: Mr P Jordan (ANC)

SUMMARY
The Israeli Ambassador briefed the Committee on the situation in Israel/Palestine. She shared the loss of the death of her niece in a recent suicide bombing. The Al-Aqsa Brigade claimed responsibility for the bombing, a Brigade which the Israeli government claims to be funded by Mr Arafat. She affirmed that the only solution was for the Palestinians and the Israelis to have their own separate States but indicated that negotiations would not take place until Mr Arafat took responsibility for and control of the violence. She claimed that the refugee situation was being deliberately maintained in order to hold it as a blight against Israel.

MINUTES
The Israeli Ambassador, Tova Herzel, stated that she had been due to meet with the Committee seven weeks before but had been unable to do so because her niece had been murdered in a suicide bombing in Israel. She had decided not to talk of it with the Committee because it was a private matter and not related to her job, but had changed her mind after a talk with her sister, hoping that it might help to change people's opinion. Her niece, who had been 22 years old, had been killed on her last day of college. The Al-Aqsa brigade, of which Mr Arafat stands at the head, had taken responsibility for the bombing. However, at the time of the occurrence there had been condemnation of the bombing by the Palestinian Authorities (PA). Israeli authorities had taken possession of documents from the Palestinian Authorities, which indicated a paper trail between the Al-Aqsa and the Palestinian Authorities.

Jews and Palestinians have the right to live side by side. The facts are that the PA and Mr Arafat have been bankrolling the Al-Aqsa. To condemn suicide bombings but continue to bankroll them is contradictory. It was irresponsible to expect Israel to go back to the negotiating table while its partner was not able to deliver and take control of the situation. It was a position that did nothing to convince the Israelis to do anything. There was growing recognition in many places in the world that the double standard does nothing but perpetuate the situation. If one side is held fully responsible and the other fully absolved it does nothing to resolve the situation.

People tended to apply their own experience to other situations. The basic difference between the Israeli/Palestine situation and the South African experience was that the conflict in South Africa was racial, whereas the conflict in the Middle East is a political conflict. The other major difference was that the solution for South Africa was to have one state for all its people while in Israel/Palestine, the answer that has been proposed for 50 years was to have to separate states for the two peoples. There was a possibility that later into the future so sort of federation could be established, but at the moment the realistic solution was to have two states.

The Ambassador turned to a discussion on the historical perspective, which she said could begin in biblical times with Abraham and his two sons. However the Israelis usually began with 1947 when the UN decided to divide what was then British Mandated Palestine into two states. The Jewish government decided to accept the partition plan although it was almost indefensible because they wanted a state of their own. Unfortunately the Arabs living there did not accept it and one cannot help but imagine what the situation would be like if the partition plan had been accepted in 1947. The reality is that the Arabs were not going away and neither are the Jews. Those who do not accept this continue the bloodshed. It was not just her family that was affected but thousands of families on both sides.

War then broke out, which the Jews have termed a "war of independence". Jerusalem came half under Israeli control with the other half being administered by Jordan. A lot of Arabs fled at the time. The reason for the fleeing has been debated. Some argued that they were told to leave by the PA with promises of being able to return later, while others argue that they had been ordered out by Israelis. Whatever the reason, they had not returned. The number of Palestinians that fled was estimated to be around 300 000, although it varies up to 700 000. This was comparable to the number of Jews that left Arab countries during the "war of independence". It was effectively a tragic phenomenon but comparable to the similar movement between India and Pakistan as well as Greece and Turkey.

In 1967 the Six Day War took place, which was a war of self-defence. Israel asked Jordan to stay out of the war, because of the good relations between the two countries, but Jordan decided to join in the war. At the end of the war, Israel was in occupation of the Sinai Desert, the West Back and the Golan Heights. The Sinai Desert did not have a large population but the Gaza Strip and the West Bank did have a large population of Palestinian refugees.

A Palestinian State had not been established at that time although the opportunity to do so had existed. All but Jordan kept the refugees deliberately in camps and did not give them citizenship. The question was raised as to why they should take in the refugees. It was difficult to obtain an exact number of how many people had been displaced but it was found that from 1933 and for 25 years after, the number of people who fled their homes is well over 100 million, which is the commonly accepted number. The fact is that when one talks of the number of Palestinians forced to flee their homes, what the world is hearing about is the plight of less than 0.5% of the world's refugees. The question that must be asked is why is that of all the refugee problems, all that is heard of is less than 0.5%. the Jews left behind a great deal of property in the Arab countries that they left - land that was then nationalized - and one has to assume that that the refugee problem was maintained to keep them as a blight on the world and on Israel. She questioned the double standard that the world was applying to Israel.

The land that was obtained during the war was held to be used later as a bargaining chip. Years later, the Egyptian President made a deal with Israel and Israel gave back the Sinai Desert. The Egyptians had not wanted the Gaza Strip. At that point, Israel had peace with Egypt and was negotiating with Jordan. In 1993 Rabin and Arafat met in Washington and shook hands, indicating that the Israelis believed that the original idea of sharing the land would be returned to. Negotiations went on until 2000. During negotiations between Arafat and Barak, under the auspices of President Clinton at Camp David, Israel put more on the table than they had before, with the general belief that they were at the end of the conflict. The Israelis believe in making difficult decisions but telling their people the truth. They had been doing that since 1974 when it was understood that the two peoples would have to share the land. At the moment of truth in Camp David, the answer from the Palestinians was neither "yes" or "no" but violence.

There is no denying a humanitarian crisis. Israel was currently closing 8 embassies and the Palestinians were worse hit. It could be said with certainty that the PA authorities thought the violence could be controlled and directed at achieving political objectives. Mr Arafat has since said that he was prepared to accept the "Clinton proposals", but the question that arises is why did he not do so when first offered them. Those who care for the Palestinians should tell them that the Israelis were not going away.

The overwhelming majority of Israelis believe that Palestine should have their own state, but they also believe in the Palestinians taking care of themselves, and it was not a good excuse to say that they were not responsible or in control of the situation. During demonstrations after September 11^th Arafat's troops shot into the crowds, killing two students. This was a deliberate message sending out their support to the US, however they exercised no control over the suicide bombings. Israel was not going away, and the sooner the Palestinians recognised that, and the sooner their friends encouraged them to recognise it, the better.

Regarding trade relations between South Africa and Israel, exports take place on a 2:1 ratio, i.e. South Africa exports twice as much to Israel that they import. Israel feels that it can contribute a lot to South Africa. There was recently a two-week programme held by the Israelis in the Limpopo Province. The Israelis were happy to share their experience with South Africa and other African countries. There was a good dialogue with the South Africa government, although they were critical of Israel.

Discussion

The Chair noted that there is not a single party in Parliament that does not recognise the right of the Israel to its own State. The same right existed for the Palestinians. There was no difference of opinion between the South African Parliament and the PA in that regard. The Portfolio Committee had recently had a briefing by the Palestinian Ambassador, which had also been comprehensive. The topic was an emotive and explosive one. He appealed for members to speak from their heads rather than their hearts.

The Chair welcomed a group of secretaries from the Zimbabwean parliament and explained the South African policy of open committee meetings to them.

Mr Ramgobin (ANC) explained to the Ambassador that he had lost a 29-year-old son to an assassin but he did not use it as an impediment in his search. He had also lost four friends to apartheid assassins, but chose to use them not as impediments but rather as inspirations. He suggested that the creation of Israel was an imperialist solution.

He questioned why the term "Jews" was always mentions with regard to the question of Israel. Juxtaposing the US, EU and Jenin, he questioned why there was such a volume of opinion against the Jewish government. There is a position that the equation in Israel is religious and not secular. The saddest aspect is that there is no justification for what the current Israeli government is doing to the Palestinian people. South Africa was committed to the establishment of a Palestinian State. The ANC has a strong position on the issue and viewed the right of the Palestinian people to have their own state as being mutilated by the Israelis, and believed that the US was keeping the situation boiling for their own ends.

Mr Geldenhuys (NNP) conveyed his condolences to the Ambassador. The Ambassador in her introduction had said that the situation was purely political. He begged to differ, as it seemed that there was a strong religious undertone that makes the situation very different. It appeared to him that the Arab League Plan was a possible solution and asked what the position of the Israeli government was to this. Referring to the Ambassadors statement that the Palestinians were willing to accept the Clinton proposals, he questioned what the position of the Israeli government was on the issue. Comment was asked for with regard to the fact that half the population of Jordan is Palestinian however the Jordanians do not appear to want a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

Mr Eglin (DP) said that it was interesting to see how different people interpreted history and thanked the Ambassador for that. Referring to handshake in Washington mentioned earlier, he thought that the world was looking for another handshake. He did not believe it necessary to have an end to violence in order to negotiate as had happened between F W de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. He asked if the Israeli government had a firm commitment that in the event of violence ceasing, it would negotiate with Palestine about a Palestinian sovereign State. He had not heard recently from the Sharon government, a firm commitment that there should be an independent Palestinian sovereign state.

Mr Sithole (ANC) noted that it was a commitment from most South Africans to see peace in that part of the world and to participate and contribute to the process. He also begged to differ about the reference to a purely political conflict and felt that the South African struggle was also not just a racial conflict and it was a mistake to reduce it to just that. He questioned if anything was being done to mobilize the Jewish community to fight against the threat of extinction. He inquired if Israel has sufficient leadership to lead the Israeli people to a peaceful end. He did not see the Sharon government as being committed to that, and believed that the imposing of conditions weakened even those forces that sought peace. It was not time for Israel to say that it would like those conditions, but rather for Israel to ask how they could help to strengthen the PA to that they could have those conditions. In South Africa it could not be said that all whites were pro-apartheid. It was necessary to strengthen those who refused the apartheid system in order to establish peace.

Regarding the allegation of Mr Arafat financing the violence, he said that leaders in South Africa had been accused of the same thing. He questioned to what extent had Israeli leadership and its political establishment not approved the Camp David Agreement.

The Ambassador extended her appreciation to Mr Ramgobin for sharing his personal aspect, but stated that she had not said anything at the meeting that she would not have said eight weeks before. She apologised for over-simplifying the South African situation and had not intended to do so. She had meant that people in South Africa make the comparison because of their own experiences.

Regarding the religious aspect, she said that being Jewish was a funny identity as it was a nationality as well as a religion and was similar to being Armenian. There is a religious element in terms of nationality. Jerusalem was a holy city to Jews, Moslems and Christians. There are religious fundamentalists but the solution would have to be political and the political, rather than the religious leaders must reach any agreement.

There are Jews who are critical of Israel and the actions taken by Israel but even they would agree that Jews have the right to a State and their historical homeland. With regard to the other questions, the Committee could not expect the Ambassador to say anything bad about her government. Democracy was not a perfect system but it was the best system and Israel is a good democracy and would continue to do as them people instructed it.

The Israeli people did not vote against Barak because of the Barak plan. They did so becaue the direct result of Camp David was violence, at a time when the Israelis had offered more than they had offered before. When there are documents and cheques with signatures, it is evidence that the leadership is bankrolling the violence.

In 1993, Arafat committed to non-violence. He is the leader of the PA with 14 separate security structures and every cheque over US$250 is signed by him. These structures, that Israel helped arm and train, are now being targeted by at the Israelis and led by a man who undertook to stop the violence.

Regarding Jenin, the UN Secretary-General issued a statement that said all allegations against the Israelis were unfounded. Israel believed that because of the tough battle situation in the area, a military expert should have been sent in to investigate the matter, however three human rights experts had been sent in instead. The report that had come out of the Commision of Enquiry was thougth to be totally biased by the Israelis for that reason.

To say that what Israel does is not justified is to take the situation out of context. They were looked for ways to deal with a situation that no one else has had to deal with. The High Court of Israel has said to the government that they cannot expel the relatives of suicide bombers known to have encouraged the bombers. Those who would absolve the Palestinians and blame the Israelis are perpetuating the situation. It is not a tenable situation to be afraid to get on a bus or to go into a restaurant and not be able to do anything about it.

Ms Hajaij (ANC) expressed her sympathy for the loss of the Ambassador's niece. She noted that Israel had been established at the behest of the UN but inquired as to why, since then, Israel has refused to implement every UN and Security Council Resolution and gets away with impunity. One must then ask where does the arrogance of Israel emanate and questioned if it was because it has the US as the only country with total support for it, and with the US pretending to be an honest broker of peace.

Referring to the Ambassador's comment of the "refugees as a showpiece", she suggested that they learnt to do so from the Israelis who have kept the holocaust alive. Fifty years later one still sees Germany paying reparation, although what happened in Europe cannot be condoned. It was contradictory to not allow the same for Palestine. It was also distasteful not to allow the Palestinians back their homeland when large sums of money were being offered to Israelis to return to their homeland - information that she had learned through personal experience.

The Ambassador replied that she could not speak for the US and the Committee should invite the American representative instead. To say that Israel ignores UN Resolutions is not fair. One must look at the UN attitude towards Israel. The UN behaves as though Israel was responsible for half of the Human Rights abuses in the world - half of UN Resolutions concern Israel. Israel is the only country in the world that is not a member of any UN Regional grouping. Automatic condemnations of Israel, while ignoring human rights in other parts of the world, leaves much to be desired.

One of the first laws to be written in Israel was the "law of return", which also touches on what does it mean for Israel to be a State. The reason behind the law was that for 2000 years, finally the Jews could have a home with no questions asked. People who need help to relocate are given financial assistance.

On the comparison between the holocaust and dislocation through war, she said that dislocation is a terrible pain and deserves sympathy but to compare it to the deliberate extermination of Jews is not honest and not fair and does not serve anything. This was seen at the Racism Conference in Durban the previous year which is internationally recognised as a conference that was a huge waste of money. In addition, the 10 million Jews that were left in the world did their utmost to help those who survived. If Germany is paying her mother, who was forced to work as slave labour in a concentration camp, then it is sufficient compensation. A great disservice would be done if the holocaust were not to be kept as a unique experience and different from any other in the world.

Meeting adjourned