Palestinian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
8 June 2005
Palestinian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr J D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
SA Foreign Affairs Committee briefing "Recent Developments in the Middle East Peace Process"
SA Foreign Affairs Committee briefing "Update on the Middle East Developments"
Presidential Peace Initiative and South Africa’s position vis a vis the Middle East Peace Process

SUMMARY
The Palestinian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the Committee on the status of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. The three main areas of focus were current Palestinian "roadmap" efforts; the Israeli unilateral plan to withdraw settlers; and Israeli practices helping and harming the peace process.

In the ensuing discussion time, major themes raised by Members included the role of Hamas, the credibility of the United States as a participant in the peace process, the effectiveness of the United Nations, and what role the international community and South Africa could play to assist the peace process.

MINUTES

Palestinian briefing
The Palestinian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr A Abdullah, outlined the achievements of his government, and emphasised that Mohammed Abbas was following in Arafat’s "quest for peace." However, the West was sidelining Prime Minister Abbas and shirking their obligations to prior agreements, including the Oslo Accord and the Camp David Agreement.

The Palestinian government continued restructuring governmental institutions, in particular the security forces, and further implementing democracy and democratic elections on all levels. The role of Palestinian leadership was to lead Palestinians out of oppression by suppressing reactions to Israeli violence while still maintaining the trust of the people.

On the topic of the Israeli unilateral pullout from Gaza, applauded as a bold step by Israeli Prime Minister A Sharon by the West, the Palestinian government would welcome any withdrawal from Palestinian territory. However, this pullout would not be a true withdrawal according to the five precepts outlined by the United Nations (UN), United States (US), European Union (EU), and Russian Federation on 4 May 2004. Israel would still maintain control over the borders between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, the airspace, international waters, and all the checkpoints. The real goal of the Gaza pullout was to neutralise Israel’s poor image internationally, allowing Israel to solidify their control over the West Bank, and bypass other Palestinian concerns regarding settlers, refugees, Jerusalem and the borders, ultimately preventing the creation of a viable Palestinian state and peace prospects.

The Palestinian government rejected any actions by Israel that would compromise the integrity of the territory comprising Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. They decried the building of the wall in Palestinian territory that divided Palestinians and was a method for Israel to gain control of more Palestinian land. He also questioned Israel’s commitment to the peace process, noting that since 8 February 2005, Palestinian groups had maintained a cease-fire, while the Israeli army has continued their incursions into Palestinian territory.

Discussion
Mr B Holomisa (UDM) asked about the role of the United States in the peace process, noting that all the United Nations (UN) resolutions passed were "toothless" as the United States had "hijacked" the UN programmes regarding Israel. He asked if the Palestinian leadership would trust a peace process sponsored solely by the United States. The US had a role but the UN Secretary-General should guide the process.

Mr P Sibande (ANC) asked what follow-up was possible on UN resolutions that had been adopted but not implemented, and asked what role South Africa could play in this. He queried if the US was recognising the popular support for Hamas and Hezbollah, noting that Mr Abbas had to bring all the groups into a consensus to maintain popular credibility. Finally, he asked how the Palestinians had managed their local elections, especially in light of the restrictions of movement imposed by Israel.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) asked if it was possible to have a peaceful resolution when the people trusted with effecting the resolution were part of the problem. The root of the failure to reach a peaceful settlement was the political manoeuvring by those in power to retain power. This was also a contributing factor in the US’ veto of all resolutions by the UN criticising Israel, and the US’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the wall issue. He also questioned the motives of regional powers involved in brokering the peace process. It might not suit neighbouring countries to have Palestine emerge as a peaceful secular democracy. Finally, he asked if the Palestinians could appeal to Christians worldwide regarding the damaged sanctity of the Holy Land, mobilising them to put pressure on Israel to reach a peaceful settlement and end the occupation.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) commented that the US has contributed greatly to destabilising the Middle East and could not be trusted as "an honest broker" in the peace process. She stated that "whatever Sharon wants from the US, Sharon gets," and that the US’ actions in Iraq and Lebanon were the result of that Prime Minister’s work behind the scenes. She questioned the effectiveness of the West in resolving the situation, noting that no nation had seriously challenged Israel for violating human rights. All the accords had not been kept. The developing world, particularly the Non-Aligned Movement, needed to stop relying on the West for financial resources and action. Hamas and Hezbollah were unlikely to disarm before the Israeli army (the third largest in the world), and that it would be unfair to ask them to do so.

Deputy Minister Abdullah replied that Hamas was a Palestinian national movement struggling to end the Israeli occupation, although he disagreed with their tactics. Although some Israelis were criminals, it would be wrong to respond in kind, as a Hamas or Palestinian response would only deepen the fears of some Israelis that the existence of the Jewish state was threatened. However, he would never ask Hamas or any Palestinian to disarm, as the occupation had to be resisted by all means, even though these responses won’t stop Israel’s action. He likened Hamas to arms that protecteds people which would not be necessary when there was peace, and which would be taken away if misused.

Ms M Njobe (ANC) asked if the recent interaction between South Africans, Palestinians and Israelis had beneficial to the Palestinian people. She also asked if the construction of the wall in Palestine should be allowed to continue, and what the international community could do. Could there be peace if the Palestinians felt that Israel had stolen land from them with the wall? Finally, she asked about the toll of the struggle on Palestinian women and children, and emphasised that if the women of Palestine and Israel were better organised, they could pressure their governments to help achieve peace.

Deputy Minister Abdullah agreed that women had a significant role to play in the peace process, and that Palestine would appreciate a growing relationship between South African, Palestinian, and Israeli women. All involved could gain from the experience.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked about the Deputy Minister’s background, noting that he was unusually hopeful of a peaceful settlement. She asked if he represented a ‘new generation’ or a shift in view among Palestinian politicians.

Deputy Minister Abdullah outlined his history of struggle, starting with his involvement in the Palestine Liberation Orgnanisation (PLO) in 1966. He was not a ‘new breed’ of Palestinian politician, but rather a disciple of Arafat, who had taught him that this conflict would only be solved by understanding the concerns of the other side, not by violence. By the "dictatorship of geography," the Palestinians and Israelis were destined to live side by side, and that despite all their suffering, Palestinians were willing to forgive past wrongs if their future would be better.

He continued that South Africa’s involvement had helped, and that the country’s ‘moral stature’ allowed it to defend the principles of universal human freedom and dignity. The international community could play a role in pressuring Israel to further the peace process by boycotting settlements and prevent settlers from visiting their countries. Additionally, various groups could pressure Israel into obeying the ICJ ruling about the wall. These efforts could grow into a strong movement, just like the movement against apartheid.

Deputy Minister Abdullah conceded that the United Nations was very ineffectual, as no resolutions which had been passed relating to Israel, had been implemented, even those few that US President Bush had publicly supported. However, the US had complained when resolutions dealing with Syria and Lebanon were not implemented fully. The UN, as part of the UN, US, EU and Russian Federation ‘quartet’, was overseeing the peace processes and sponsoring the ‘roadmap’. The latter had since been adopted by the UN Security Council on 23 November 2003, and had become an internationally sanctioned plan.

The Chairperson encouraged the Committee to make arrangements to travel to Israel, as Ms Camerer had suggested the last session, as such a trip would help the Committee to understand the reality of the wall and the occupation in general.

The Chairperson presented Deputy Minister Abdullah with an original ballot from the South African 1994 elections, and was presented in turn with a Palestinian headscarf.

The meeting was adjourned.