Palestinian Ambassador’s briefing

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
6 June 2007
PALESTINIAN AMBASSADOR’S BRIEFING

Chairperson: Dr M Sefularo (ANC)

Documents Handed out:
None

Audio Recording of the Meeting

SUMMARY
Members were briefed by the Palestinian Ambassador on the current socio-political environment in Palestine. The briefing stressed the need for a peaceful resolution between Palestine and Israel through negotiations for a two-state solution. It was highlighted that one of the main obstacles for achieving peace was the Israeli government’s reluctance to engage in negotiations. The briefing noted that conditions for the citizens of Palestine had deteriorated considerably and that the need for peace was crucial if these were to improve. The Palestinian Legislative Council was also incapacitated as many of its members were imprisoned in Israeli jails. The Ambassador urged the international community to recognise the human rights abuses and immoral conduct of the Israeli government toward Palestinians.

Members made frequent comparisons to the South African experience and empathised with the Palestinian situation. Members wanted to know whether other countries were influencing the conflict and what the South African government could do to build peace in the region. Members and the Ambassador concurred that peaceful negotiations was the only way that peace could be achieved.

MINUTES
Palestinian Ambassador: briefing
Ali Ahmed Halimeh, the Palestinian ambassador, briefed the Committee on the recent socio-political developments in Palestine. He noted that the immediate challenges involved resolving tensions between Arabs and Israelis and the occupation of Palestinian territories. A recent attempt that aimed to ease these tensions was the Arab Peace Initiative. The initiative was based on the United Nations Resolution 242 and called for Israel to withdraw from the territories in Palestine, allow Palestinian refugees to return and for the recognition of the Palestinian state. He noted that this was a generous offer but was not accepted by the Israeli government.

The Ambassador stressed that the majority of Palestinian citizens wanted a two-state solution. The Palestinian government had reinforced this commitment by supporting the Arab Peace Initiative as well as giving support to President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel. The Israeli government’s refusal to negotiate with Palestine was undermining any attempt at resolving the conflict. He noted that many of the fourteen million Palestinians living in Gaza were young adults who did not see a positive outcome and had therefore turned to fundamentalist behaviour.

The Ambassador noted that Palestine had made a considerable effort to recognise the state of Israel but similar conciliatory measures were not reciprocated. Unjust measures taken by Israel included the building of a diving wall, the refusal of access to agricultural lands and the permit system that had disrespected fundamental human rights. The permit system was managed by 500 checkpoints and other impediments in the West Bank alone. This restriction of movement was deeply unjust as it had not allowed free movement to and from religious sites. Israel had not recognised the Palestinian government as a legitimate partner for negotiation and this would have to change for peace to take place. The reliance on security measures by Israel was counter-productive to what many Palestinians and Israelis had wanted.

The Ambassador was concerned with the paralysis of the Palestinian Legislative Council. He noted that 12 members were imprisoned in Israeli jails and therefore obstructed a working parliament in Palestine. The Palestinian leadership recognised that violence on both sides was not productive and therefore political prisoners had to be released for negotiations to take place.

The Palestinians were encouraged by a document drafted by an American delegation in Palestine. The document noted that the restriction of Palestinian movement had to be eased. These recommendations were negatively received by Israel, but America noted this reluctance as an impediment to peace.

The Ambassador noted that despite recent tension, the Fatah and Hamas parties both recognised the Mecca Agreement that encouraged unity and stability. Economic conditions had been worsened in Palestine due to the $700 million of tax collections that were being withheld by Israel. The problems were compounded by the sanctions imposed by the European Union and the US. He noted that stability of the economic and political sectors were needed so that institutions could be restructured.

A clear vision was needed for the future of Palestine. The South African example of conflict resolution gave the Palestinians hope for overcoming the consequences of a forty-year conflict.

Discussion
Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) noted that an equitable solution was needed, but that the actions of Israel and its allies were obstructing peaceful initiatives. He noted that the balkanisation of Palestine was troubling for the Committee as it echoed South Africa’s history. He wanted to know what were the opinions of the Palestinian people to the two-state solution and the balkanisation of Palestine. He noted that the South African government had a strong policy of self-determination and did not condone Israeli occupation.

The Ambassador responded that the violent measures taken by Israel were not ethically maintainable. He noted that the main problem was the Israeli belief that a system based on security and force was the solution.

Mr D Gibson (DA) was concerned with the conflict in the Middle East region. He supported the two-state solution through negotiations. He recommended that the South Africa government should not get involved directly with the conflict in Palestine. He noted that a briefing from the Israeli ambassador would be beneficial for a constructive discussion.

The Ambassador noted the majority of Palestinians recognised the rightful return of refugees. He noted that the Palestinian citizens must not be stuck with ideological positions but rather focus on the movement for resolution and peace.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) wanted to know what were the obstacles preventing resolution. He asked whether the South African government could be of assistance in the negotiations.

The Ambassador responded that the role of South Africa was not to force negotiations but show support for a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine. He noted that South Africa’s transition served as a useful model for Palestine.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) asked whether the US and EU had an even-handed approach when dealing with Palestine and Israeli authorities. He also wanted to know the composition of the Palestinian prisoners being held. He noted that there had been outside support for Israel that was blocking positive movements for resolution. He was concerned that Palestinians were being divided internally.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) noted that the situation in Palestine was critical. He asked what the role of the G8 countries was in assisting peaceful negotiations. He stated that the UN Resolution had to be recognised before negotiations could take place.

The Ambassador noted that the EU usually provided funding for peaceful negotiations but followed the same line as the US. He stated that the EU had to take a strong position that emphasised a democratic outcome. He noted that it would be unlikely that the US would change its position. There was a strong Jewish lobby in Washington that was influencing US policy and obstructing a peaceful outcome.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) noted that there was a shift away from a two-state solution by the Israeli government. He noted the conflict had been problematic for the global economy and had therefore marginalised the development agenda for developing countries. He asked whether there was a viable negotiating partner in the Israeli government.

Mr L Labuschagne (DA) questioned the influence Iran had as an outside force. He noted that both sides had extremists that were blocking peaceful negotiations by using violent retaliations.

The Ambassador recognised that other Arab states had been instrumental in supporting Palestine but the support was negatively manipulated by Israel. The surrounding Arab states had usually played an intermediary role with Israel.

He noted that there should be little concern with the role Iran was playing. Iran was using political rhetoric to push other areas of concern and contestation between themselves and America and Europe. He noted that without a permanent solution there could be no peace in the region.

The meeting was adjourned.