Petition on current situation in Palestine: National Coalition for Palestine briefing

Meeting report

Reverend Edwin Arrison, National Coalition for Palestine (NC4P) chairperson in South Africa, said that on 9 August 2014 there had been a peaceful march attended by over 200 000 people, according to media reports, in which a petition on Palestine had been handed over to government. He said a medical doctor reported that the march, which was broadcast live in a Palestinian hospital, had brought hope to a people in despair. South Africa was seen by Palestinians as a place of hope because it was a place where a conflict had been resolved. He said the NC4P were not in solidarity with Palestinian people, they were united with them, and quoted Nelson Mandela as saying “South Africa cannot be free until Palestine is free”. The UN national day for Palestine would be celebrated the following week and he hoped Parliament would make a declaration on the 29 November. In addition, 2017 would be the centenary of the Balfour Declaration which led to the loss of Palestinian land to Israeli settlers. Pope Francis had declared two Palestinians as saints in the past two years and there were agreements signed between the Vatican and Palestine. For the NC4P, there was always hope for change in a non violent way using sanctions, disinvestment, boycotts and marches and a strong stand by the international community. Rev Arrison said he had no respect for the current peace process because it was a false peace where land was being grabbed by Israel.

Mr Muhamad Desai, National Committee member of the Young Communist League, said the motivation for the march and the petition was the savage attacks on Palestinians, especially children, which had mobilised people to say the killings were unacceptable. The NC4P was in Parliament to find solutions where Parliament could support this by addressing the violations of international human rights law. The petition was calling for a fact finding mission to Palestine; that Parliament have a debate on Palestine on 29 November, the UN Palestine Day; it was calling for boycotts, economic sanctions and divestment against Israel. The call for boycotts was to put pressure on the Israeli government to arrive at a just solution. It called for an immediate end to military agreements between the government and Israel; it was asking Parliament to take a stand against illegal Israeli settlements because they were a violation of international law which the EU and the USA had all agreed to. The petition also called for South Africans serving in the Israeli defence force without permission to be prosecuted under South African legislation. It also called for South African companies to be excluded from doing business with the state if the companies were found to be complicit in the Israeli human rights violations

He said South African church activists were being denied entry into Palestine and South Africa should investigate why this was so. The Israeli government had indicated that it would embark on a programme of targeted civil assassinations of people involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. He did however acknowledge that these were not part of the original petition.

Ms Rina King, member of SA Jews for a Free Palestine, said a Bedouin village had been threatened with demolition for the development of a Jewish settlement and that South African Jews could be involved in the demolition. If South Africa did not take a stance against the settlements it could be construed as South Africa’s consent.

Mr Abdul Khaliq Allie, First Deputy President of the Muslim Judicial Council, said the Palestine issue was similar to the South African case where land and rights had been stolen and dignity had been violated. He said Gaza was in effect the largest open air prison and that what Palestinians experienced was worse than what black South Africans had experienced under apartheid.

Mr Bram Hanekom member of the ANC Youth League said 200 000 people had taken a principled stance when they had marched on Parliament and that it was time that political parties took a stance. He noted that Mayor Herman Mashaba was already working to reverse the twinning agreement between a Palestinian town and Johannesburg.

There were many interjections at this point and Ms S Kalyan (DA) said that the chairpersons should call Mr Hanekom to order for impugning the dignity of Mr Mashaba and that Mr Hanekom should stick to matters pertaining to the petition.

Mr Hanekom apologised for saying that the Mayor was trying to reverse an international agreement. He said the Committee had an opportunity to make their position clear.

Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said Parliament and civil society should come together on the issue but the previous speaker, Mr Hanekom, was putting emotion before logic. He did not want to go down the path of politicizing the issue; it would be better to try to find common dialogue. He said the presentation by Rev Arrison had focussed on hope but not on providing solutions. Could Rev Arrison elaborate on what the term ‘a just peace process’ meant. He said Mr Desai had not spoken to the two-state solution. He agreed that there should be a fact finding mission.

Mr D MacPherson (DA) commented on the casual dress of Mr Hanekom saying it showed disrespect. He wanted clarity on whether there should be discussion of matters that were not part of the original petition. He said he was disappointed that Mr Hanekom had politicised the matter. He said he had been to Palestine where a PLO official had said that Palestine did not want to be cut off from Israel. Why would South Africa remove itself from potential business, because South Africa was unique because of its moral authority and experience of a similar situation.
 
Mr D Bergman (DA) asked if the NC4P shared DIRCO’s position on the Middle East. He said South Africa would be the loser if there was a sanction or boycott of Israel and that the boycott of Woolworths had not worked. He said that in the Soda Stream case, 1 000 Palestinian workers with an average salary of 6 000 shekels had lost jobs in the occupied territories. He noted that in 2006, Israel had withdrawn settlers from occupied territories and 90 days’ later rockets had been launched into Israel from these areas. He said he supported peace initiatives. How was NC4P advocating for peace and getting all parties around the table?

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) said that it would be a concern for South Africa to have an obvious bias. She said the document’s policy was contrary to the policy of Arab/ Muslim countries in the region which had full diplomatic ties with Israel and that diplomatic ties should be protected and strengthened. How would disinvestment from Israel benefit South Africa and what would the cost be for South Africa? She said Palestinians themselves did not want sanctions.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) agreed that there should be peace in the region but that the precursor to peace was justice. He believed that the petition was important and that where one stands regarding the Palestinian question was an indicator of one’s morality. He said he had not heard from Palestinians, only from civil groups, on what they wanted. He said any matters related to contravention of legislation on military service in a foreign country should be followed to the letter. He found it ironic that the ANC had a majority in Parliament and ANC aligned organisations were petitioning Parliament so it should be easy for the ANC government to enact legislation in favour of the Palestinian issue. He questioned whether the ANC would act in the interest of Palestine.

Mr S Masango (ANC) said that issues could be added to the memorandum that had been presented. He also asked what the NC4P response would be to challenges of anti Semitism and of the fact that Palestinian rights were being talked about but not that of the statehood of Israel.

Ms Kalyan questioned whether the petition could be changed as it had been signed. There could be no amendments without the signatures of the signatories.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that discussion and report back should stick to the petition. Any other discussion would be for enrichment only.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) said it was correct to use sanctions. Margaret Thatcher had said that sanctions against South Africa would hurt Africans, but he reminded them that Africans in South Africa had said that it would hurt the whites more. He asked if the NC4P knew of any South African soldiers in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). Could the NC4P assist with providing a list of business people doing business with the Zionist state? He asked if the NC4P or any government had laid charges against members of the Israeli government to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Ms P Mantashe (ANC) said she wanted to allay the EFF’s fear that the government would not support Palestine. She requested that all ANC formations and the Palestinians themselves should speak as one voice. The ANC had passed a resolution on the reconstruction of Palestine in support of the Palestinian struggle. She said the ANC would support the sanctions campaign.

Mr A Williams (ANC) said the only people who could resolve the Palestinian issue were Palestinians and the Israelis. He said the threats against the boycott movement activists should be condemned and the undermining of the BDS movement should not be allowed to happen. He said one should not forget the people killed and displaced as well as the illegal occupations. He proposed that the Committee accept the parts that Parliament could do and put pressure on the Executive to implement the other parts of the petition.

Mr N Koornhof (ANC) supported the last point of Mr Williams. He said he recognised that the petition was two years old and that circumstances had changed and that there were efforts to work towards a negotiated settlement. He supported DIRCO’s position and wanted pressure to be applied in Parliament as one could not ignore what was happening in Palestine.

Mr E Mackue (ANC; Gauteng) said he appreciated the broadness of the coalition. He said the issue was not about Israel, it was about Palestinians and their occupied land. He urged that the UN Palestine Day commemoration, on 29 November, be looked at by Parliament. He said boycotts and sanctions did help in South Africa’s case. What had not been mentioned in the presentation was how the water sources of Palestinian people were being cut off and aquifers were being diverted. He said the Palestinian issue was not a Muslim/Jewish issue; it was a gross human rights violation.

Mr Radebe said that the envisaged parliamentary debate could happen, however Parliament’s program was very full at the end of the year. He did not foresee any problems to it becoming an annual event, nor did he foresee problems in holding an event to mark the Balfour Declaration in 2017. The attacks and loss of life against the people of Palestine, especially the children had to be condemned. A mechanism had to be created so that South Africans doing military service in the IDF could be brought forward and prosecuted. He said points 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of the petition were the preserve of the executive. He said point 1.8 could be brought forward at the next Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) conference. He asked if the people of Palestine had been contacted on the issue.

Rev Arrison said that those that had been part of the anti apartheid struggle felt a sense of déjà vu to some of the arguments that had been raised against the petition. The NC4P saw the Palestine issue in the context of a framework for justice, liberation and peace. It was not seen in terms of trade and lost business opportunities, or in terms of it being anti Semitic. The NC4P interventions were to attain freedom and justice for all people, for the oppressed and the oppressor. There was a need to dig into South Africa’s history and give Palestinians hope through the South African experience.

He said the NC4P’s task was to allow space for everyone to give their perspective. On the question of the two-state solution, he said it was not a question of one, two or three states, it was about a solution derived by the Palestinians and Israelis.

He said it was not part of the NC4P’s language to be neutral. The NC4P’s language was justice and it would actively seek solutions to the plight suffering Palestinians were experiencing. The current peace process was a false peace. There was contact with Palestinians on a daily basis. Israel was stopping church people on official church business from entering Palestine.

Mr Desai said the call for boycotts and sanctions was the official position of the Palestine Authority. In 2005 Palestine had called for a boycott and divestment. Progressive Israelis, equivalent to people like Beyers Naude in South Africa, were calling for a boycott and embassies were calling for a boycott. The NC4P was not asking for a political position to be taken; it was asking that there be agreement with international law.

He said that in the Soda Stream case, workers were surprised by comments that they were suffering because they were the ones calling for a boycott.

On the Israelis offering African countries expertise, this was an attempt to bribe or buy them off through providing loans, agricultural assistance and water schemes. He congratulated the government on signing MOUs on water technology with Iran and Japan. It did not need to take assistance from oppressors.

He supported that Palestinians and Israelis work out their own solution but Israel had to be brought to the negotiating table through boycotts and sanctions just as in the case of South Africa.

He said any fact finding mission had to include the Gaza Strip and be under the auspices of the World Council of Churches (WCC), a neutral body.

He said there appeared to be consensus amongst the parliamentarians on the UN day of solidarity with Palestine and that the SA government policy should have as its cornerstone the condemnation of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

Ms King said that to criticise Israel was not being anti Semitic. Israel tended to conflate the two ideas. Israel was taking more and more land and outside pressure was required to control their activities. Jewish organisations and groups were meeting and were against Israeli policies.

Mr Hanekom took exception that his dress code had been singled out.

Ms Kalyan said the decorum policy of the House had to be followed.

Mr Z Mandela (ANC) said Mr Hanekom had only spoken about attire because it had been pointed out by a Committee member.

Mr Hanekom, after apologising for his comments, said the NC4P did have trade unions on board. It was encouraging that voices other than the Jewish Board of Deputes were being heard. The broad coalition was definitely anti-Zionist and not anti Semitic. Prior to 1945, Israel was built on the basis of land stolen from the Palestinians and they were now putting up settlements in Palestinian territory in violation of the two-state solution. The House should approach the Palestinian question on the basis that there was a perpetrator and a victim.

Rev Arrison said the NC4P would supply information on South Africans becoming members of the IDF. A list had been given to the National Prosecuting Authority.

Mr Masango said the Committees would report back to the Speaker that there be a debate in the House on Palestine and that it should happen each year. It was in the nature of things that different political parties would hold different views. The South African experience had shown that not all whites were oppressors and not all blacks were oppressed. The Committee would be meeting with the Jewish Board of Deputies on the coming Friday. A fact finding mission to the Gaza Strip would be included as a recommendation in the Committee Report. The two-state solution remained the official position of South Africa and the UN, but what was at issue was the settlements, especially in East Jerusalem. This was a matter for a different group to consider. The executive arm of government would not enforce sanctions on Israel because it was involved in the mediation process. South Africa did not want to withdraw the South African ambassador or expel the Israeli ambassador because it would have no impact if only South Africa did it. The NC4P could meet with ministerial clusters for clarification on whether this was correct or not. The mediation process was two legged, comprising Aziz Pahad and Zola Skweyiya and the Palestinians and Israelis had to put in their minimum demands. Those issues that could be done by Parliament would be attended to and issues at the level of government should be put forward by the Speaker to the executive.

Rev Arrison said he was happy that the Palestine issue was raised in Parliament. It was not a question of giving equal weighting to groups petitioning Parliament. The weighting should be on the basis of justice and injustice.

The meeting was adjourned.