Gaza: Palestinian Ambassador briefing

Meeting report

Introduction by Chairperson
The Chairperson stated that all the members of the committee were interested observers of current events in the Gaza Strip area of Palestine. Mr Ben Skosana, of the committee, had expressed the opinion that it was important that the South African Parliament should both reflect and take a stance on the matter and issue a statement. To this effect the Ambassadors from Palestine and Israel had been invited to appear before this Committee, but at different times. It was felt that the current reported casualty figures; approximately 1000 deaths, mainly children and women, in Palestine Gaza as opposed to 13 in Israel certainly required a response from Israel.

In July 2008 the Committee had conducted an in loco inspection in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Syria observing conditions and seeking to find long term peace prospects. He mentioned that Israel had not wanted to meet the Members of the (South African) Committee and there had been less than perfect co-operation. This was viewed as problematic. By contrast the Palestinians were under no compulsion to seek peace. In fact there were differing statements from the differing leaders among the Palestinians. What was clear were the unambiguous condemnatory statements from the leaders of the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU) and the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization concerning the loss of life and injuries suffered by the victims, on both sides, of the fighting. It was felt that the loss of life and the casualties were unjustified. Prima facie, schools and United Nations Relief convoys could not be justifiable targets, but the use of shields for military designations were not unknown. There was presently an engagement of Egypt in a move for a ceasefire. There was reference to the “The Gaza War” with two armies with different equipment, tactics and political objectives.

The Ambassador from the Palestinians would give an explanation of the reality on the ground, which had altered considerably recently, and the Gaza territorially was becoming smaller, static and unmanageable. In addition, while there was a concentration on the military and political aspects of the Gaza situation there was little concentration on the human rights issues and so he as Chairperson of this Committee was both looking for a reaction from Parliament, and a submission of a report to Parliament. He reminded the Members that this meeting arose from a question to the Speaker of Parliament regarding what South Africa and the South African Parliament was doing for the dual South African Israeli citizens caught up in the problems in the Middle East and how South Africa could contribute to achieving a solution.

The Chairperson advised the Ambassador that this was a multi party parliamentary committee, representing all the parties represented in Parliament.

Briefing by Ambassador from Palestine
Mr Ali Halimeh, Ambassador from Palestine, expressed his delight and appreciation for he and his Organization being afforded the opportunity to make their opinion known. He reminded the members that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the African National Congress (ANC) had a long relationship, since well before 1994, which had led to an understanding, good relationships and established contacts and that accordingly South Africa was viewed as a good conduit for expressing the plight, rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people believed that they had been oppressed for between 40 and 41 years through a brutal and bloody aggression waged against the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people held the opinion and believed that there should be no distinction, politically, between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and that the 9 million people of Palestine were all one people. They believed that a war was being waged against them; that the Palestinians were being slaughtered and that infants, children, women and the elderly were being targeted and that there was neither moral nor political justification for this policy.

The Palestinian people held that the attacks were not a response to the rocket attacks upon Israel but an indiscriminate series of attacks upon Palestine using the rocket attacks as an excuse for such attacks. He suggested that the real reason behind the attacks should be investigated and publicised. He referred to the timing of the attacks and asked the reason for such. He reminded the Members that there had been an agreement in 1993 to end the conflict, and this decision had caused many differing opinions to arise, and in his opinion President Arafat had sacrificed his political career, and eventually his life, to ensure that end of the conflict, but now the present violence had erupted. The world was too inclined to judge the situation simplistically and view the attacked as the aggressor, when the seeming aggressor was merely reacting to obvious, but frequently covert, aggressions.

He suggested that Olmert and Baruck, and the Israelis as a whole, had had a change of heart and now no longer were interested in a settlement, let alone a peaceful settlement, of the region and wished to impose their ideas of the future of the geographical political area of Israel and Palestine. They were not prepared to consider any other viewpoint but they were mistaken for the Palestinians would never, never, never cease demanding what they viewed as their inalienable rights. A combination of Jewish and Zionist interests had adopted an aggressive policy towards the indigenous peoples of Palestine since well before 1948, and not only post 1948 as mistakenly advertised currently. To effect their policies the Zionists had used terrorism and violence, which was still happening today, but the terrorism now had a different character. The object of their terrorism was now said, or claimed, to be Hamas and not the Palestinian people. The Israeli Government should be required by international opinion to comply with International Law and international standards of human rights. An appropriate analogy would be if Lesotho should start firing rockets into South Africa. What would be the South African reaction? He saw this as an appropriate parallel and unacceptable. The President of Israel called for the outlawing of Hamas and so the question of the unification of the Palestinian organizations was appropriate. It was imperative that Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations meet and discuss their common future for they were all concerned with common issues - the land of Palestine, the Palestinian people and their common issues. The Ambassador suggested that it was the role of the South Africans to come and help the Palestinians but the questions was in what capacity and what role and how did they show their interest. In addition South Africa should make an effort to stop the Israeli bombing and attacks. The Egyptians were assisting, and their assistance was welcomed - for enough was enough and as at that morning the reported number of deaths was 1300 killed.

The Ambassador said that although the role of Hamas was of importance and must be clarified by debate, the attitude and role of the Western nations, who were viewed as supporting, if not encouraging, the Israelis was also open to question. The Resolutions by the United Nations Organization were ignored by Israel with impunity and Israeli comment should be referred to the UNO. The role of the USA, and its differing administrations and its about-to-be administration from the 20 January, raised questions. It was felt that President George H Bush, as had many earlier American Presidents, assisted the Israelis.

Equally, it was felt that the Egyptian - French interventions, which were seen to be supported by all the World, might prove to be of more assistance to all the parties. In fact that very morning prior to his presence at this meeting he had telephoned his Headquarters in order to ascertain the latest position on Hamas, which had not been persuaded by Egypt to provide a response. Egypt was trying to assist but within and without Hamas there was no response and accordingly one could not negotiate in such a situation. Hamas held that one could not negotiate under fire, which led to the situation or status quo remaining as it was.

He personally hoped that the intervention by Egypt would prove helpful.

His personal view was that at all costs the current madness in Gaza must be stopped.

He did not know the feelings on the streets and in the villages under Israeli occupation and/or bombardment but the solution to the current situation was not military but only political.

He foresaw that SA’s role could be the organizing of meetings between the relevant parties, for SA had an interest and experience in humanitarian solutions and could persuade the Israelis to halt the current attacks and divert them into talks and mediation which could prove fruitful. He submitted that SA could use the African Union (AU) as a mechanism for pressurising the Israelis to stop the attacks immediately. SA’s membership of the other international organs could also be used for such steps. SA had had a unique experience and the SA voice needed to be heard more and more.

The Ambassador reiterated that the Palestinians were committed and the Middle East would be different if the Israelis conceded the Palestinian desires. The Israeli’s actions only increased the hatred of Israeli and the violence.

The Ambassador stated that he hoped the Israelis would stop the attacks but he had no confidence in the Israeli leadership which adopted one stance and message for the World and yet did contrary actions because they believed, if it were not actually so, that they had the support of the US. He continued that the Israelis must pay for their crimes against humanity and that they would be called upon to pay, sooner or later.

Discussion
Dr S Pheko (Pan Africanist Congress on Azania) stated that it seemed to him that there was a very difficult situation prevailing and he did not know what drove the participants or even how anyone could help. He suggested that this was the oldest International or world conflict and was rooted in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which had overlooked the position of the Palestinian people and had given rise to the PLO. He believed that SA which still had diplomatic relations with Israel, could play a role in facilitating peace and an end to the problems. He noted the military might of Israel and asked from where this came, for he did not see the Israelis having either the technology or financial ability to develop, maintain and utilise this military machine from their own resources. Other leading powers were encouraging Israel for their own motives or interests and he felt that another tack or approach might be necessary and so he suggested, as an example, that SA break off diplomatic relations with Israel.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) thanked the Chair for the opportunity to participate, especially as he was not a member of this Committee and was exercising his rights as a Member of Parliament to attend the meeting. He suggested that the application of the ‘’Audi Alterem Partem’’ rule, hear the other point of view, would be appropriate in the circumstances. It was being applied in the Zimbabwe situation, which had a direct impact upon SA. He did however wish to emphasise that he and his party deeply regretted the loss of life. He pointed out that it was known on 14 June that the cease fire had only a further six months to run and he wondered why Hamas had been unwilling to extend the cease fire and further why no negotiations had taken place in the interim.

Ms K Magua (ANC) said that she was very distressed by what was currently happening in Israel and Palestine. She sought clarity as to the relationship between Hamas and the PLO and what efforts were made to reconcile HAMAS and the PLO. Secondly she was very concerned about and upset by the allegations that certain groups were encouraged to seek martyrdom, which was why women and children were at the forefront of the casualties, and were being used. Thirdly she sought clarification on whether weapons made and manufactured in SA were being used by the Israelis and/or the Palestinians.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) thanked the Chairperson for the opportunity to speak and he expressed his appreciation to the Ambassador for the gratifying remarks about the SA people and the role that SA had played, and could play but he pleaded for a cessation of the hostilities, hoping that the efforts of Egypt and France would be successful and that the observations by the UN and the Secretary General would prevail. For the question was of the humanitarian assistance to the people suffering distress and hardship and so he requested an opening of the passages for such assistance. Thirdly he requested a withdrawal by Israel from the occupied areas of Gaza and he hoped that the Blair quartet could speedily achieve a resolution. However, he was concerned about the role and position of Hamas and whether Egypt actually had the ability to act as a ‘’go between,’’ between Hamas and the other factions. In his view the main point was the settlements and the Israeli determination to retain the settlements and the equal Palestinian determination to return to the settlements and the role and influence of the Palestinian exiles and the erection and creation of the Apartheid barrier. The humanitarian issue was of paramount importance. He added that the borders were not clearly defined and suggested that perhaps the only solution lay in the concept of two states. He suggested that what was required was a change of heart and attitude. The unity of the Palestinian people was of paramount importance. He, too, questioned the role of Hamas as Hamas’s policy of not recognizing Israel was not helpful.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) stated that he was appalled by recent events in the Gaza Strip, appalled by the human tragedy. He recalled the recent conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia where the US and the European Union (EU) had condemned the ‘disproportionate ‘use of military power and force. He viewed the events in Gaza as similar and yet no power had deplored the disproportionate use of force by the Israelis and he questioned the duplicity involved among the bigger powers. This made a solution very difficult. In his view the powerful nations supported Israel and he asked how did one deal with this conflict and the powers behind Israel. Additionally the unity of the Palestinians was of paramount importance and yet there were no efforts towards achieving this. Further, he saw the Arab League as encouraging or fostering this disunity. As a result it was very difficult to deal with it and the UN, which itself was not united, also found it very difficult. He emphasized that SA should support any call for a cease-fire. Israel was very determined to go to the bitter end whilst the rockets continued to rain upon Israeli territory. The cycle should be broken. However there was a human tragedy occurring within the Gaza Strip and all calls for the stopping of the rockets should be taken seriously. The role of Egypt in stopping the violence should be strengthened as even the Palestinians said that Egypt could help. The human tragedy was aggravated by the use of human shields and he sought clarity on the schools that were bombed. The Israelis had been informed that these were simply schools but the Israelis countered by claiming that the Palestinians were using children, women and schools as shields. To him it seemed as if Hamas was using its own people. In conclusion he suggested that perhaps the ‘’two state’’ concept was the solution.

The Ambassador thanked the members for their observations and questions and stated that he would attempt to clarify the issues. As far as the two-state concept being the solution, he said that many refugees from Palestine had sought refuge elsewhere and his own family was an example for they had sought refuge in Lebanon after the 1948 revolution. He pointed out that there were millions of Palestinians, throughout the world, who desired a single Palestinian state, like South Africa, and they should be satisfied. He pointed out that for 60 years the Israelis had ignored UN resolutions. He reminded the Members that in the region there were Palestinians in Israel and Jews outside of Israel and that accordingly a confederation might prove to be the answer with one state for the whole area and autonomous sections or areas according to the group interests within the confederation. However Israel was not prepared to accept such suggestions hence the two state concept, based upon the 1967 boundaries, as a solution. He added that the EU itself was a further example of what might be created. It was possible to have two states. He suggested that based on the SA model the Palestinians should be allowed to choose if they wanted a Confederation model. He suggested that the West Bank and Gaza, as set out after 1993, was such an attempt but there was always the role played by the Israelis and they too have disparate factions with differing viewpoints and so possibly the two states concept was the only solution.

It was true that there had been a truce between Hamas and the Israelis and that there had been many violations by both sides. He pointed out that it was only in 1964 that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had been formed as an umbrella body and that Hamas and Fatah were members thereof but each was only one member within such body and there were other members, viewpoints and voices but they take collective decisions and speak with a collective voice. It was true that Fatah was the biggest group but post 2005/06 Hamas had emerged as a stronger voice and muscle and had interests within Gaza. He asked why Israel felt it could act with impunity and why was there the desire to see the Palestinians out of Gaza. He asked to whose advantage such might be and suggested that Egypt had undisclosed interests which a relationship with Olmert and Barak was strengthening. There was also the role and interests of the Iranians in the greater or whole Middle East. The reality was that the leadership of Hamas had its own agenda and principles, principles for which the Palestinian people were paying the price through death, the wounded and the destruction of the infrastructure by Israel. The leadership of Hamas was invited to come to Cairo to discuss these issues but they were adamant and they refused. Unfortunately the Hamas leadership made a strategic mistake and the Palestinian people were paying the price for it.

He is not trying to say that Israel is innocent but Palestinians should also be reasonable and not allow Israel to out-manouvre them. As for Hamas, he questioned whether it was a democracy although it certainly was active in the Gaza Strip. As part of the Palestinian unity, Hamas was elected and formed a unity-government Cabinet and negotiated with Fatah which brought Hamas and Fatah together. But later they pushed Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah out of Gaza. This was the man who was instrumental in getting the election to take place. They threw through him out of Gaza to the West Bank. If President Arafat was alive today he would not have allowed Hamas taking over but Mahmoud Abbas allowed it and then they stabbed him in the back. 

Mr Halimeh said that Hamas claimed that Abbas was betraying the Palestinian cause by collaborating with the Americans but Hamas wanted to fight to the end of every Palestinian woman and child to defeat Israel. There should not be fighting just for the sake of fighting. There had to be a political solution through negotiation to achieve their political objectives of freedom, independence and sovereignty. So Palestinian unity was crucial, there was no alternative to Palestinian unity in order to achieve their objectives.

Egypt had taken the initiative in attempting to broker a peace but there was no other initiative. UN Resolution 1860 had been adopted but not implemented by all parties and there was a waiting for Hamas to react and this was very critical. The question was whether Egypt wanted peace or war and such election would be critical for Hamas. The 2005 initiative was very critical but the Israelis were always suspicious for Hamas wanted control. Palestine had accepted that there could be a West Bank and a Gaza but Hamas was unable to accept this while Israel did not want a unified West Bank and Gaza. With regard to the question of unity there have been calls for Hamas to return to the fold but subsequent to the election, Hamas had taken another line and he was very sorry about that. He suggested that SA could play a very important role but it was up to the South Africans to decide the extent of the role to be played but he asked for humanitarian aid for Palestine and especially the people within Gaza.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) commented that the Ambassador had gone further in self-analysis of the situation than any other Ambassador, who had appeared before the Committee had ever done previously. However, it was clear that Gaza was on the edge of collapse. From this it was clear that two questions emerged: how as the departure by Palestine of sectarianism had strengthened the hand of Hamas and led them to take the position adopted by them and what was the position of the Arab world. He had noted the earlier reference to Lesotho and the analogy drawn but he reminded the members that there had been a time when Lesotho had been disrupted and bombarded for supplying assistance to the ANC. He added that because there was an organization, it did not mean that there was a solid stance and that it was really a question of identifying the factions within an organization and then negotiating with the malleable faction in the organization. With regard to the human rights abuses, he felt that it was superfluous to mention these but rather to report these to the International human rights watchers for action. He suggested that to mark displeasure the Israeli Ambassador should be summoned and informed that diplomatic relations were severed until such time as conditions were restored to acceptability. Further, he fundamentally disagreed with Comrade Swart that the Audi Alterem Partem rule be applied and suggested that if Comrade Swart had the time he should rather go to the International Court of Justice in Geneva to observe its application. He asked whether it was realistic to expect that Hamas should reduce its voice in favour of Fatah and asked whether it was the duty of Palestine to build unity when there was clear and blatant discrimination if not elimination of Hamas. If South Africa’s potential role were identified he would be happy to participate in brokering a settlement.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) reminded all present that at its Polokwane conference in 2007 the ANC had resolved to do all in its power to ensure peace in the Middle East, especially Gaza. Like earlier speakers, he suggested the power points should be identified and negotiated with for the subsidiary parties would follow any settlement so arrived at, and achieved.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) suggested that the good offices of Egypt might be more profitably used. He questioned what would be the purpose of the attendance the next day, before this Committee, of the Israeli Ambassador for in the battle of ideas there had been no positive response from Israel so far. With regard to the comparison between Palestine and Zimbabwe the very day before a ship carrying supplies destined for the Gaza Strip had been stopped and turned aside but nothing similar had eventuated in, or with, Zimbabwe. He added that when the inspection of the area had taken place last year, it was clear that the infrastructure was on the point of collapse. There was reference by certain commentators on the role of terrorism but there was no definition of terrorism. He reminded the Members that as late as 2008 former President Mandela was still listed by some listing authorities as a terrorist. With regard to the call for unity and clarification of the role of Hamas, he asked what was happening with Jerusalem. There did not seem to him to be proper media coverage of this aspect and all comments thereon were biased. He suggested that the SA Government should call upon the United Nations for a proper debate on the Middle East, concentrating on Gaza. He added that certain historical, and hence to be maintained and cherished, buildings were being used for sniper nests and so were liable to destruction in any warlike activities. He himself had inspected what were called rockets but which to him seem merely to be pipes and he asked how such pipes could be compared to bombs and the destruction caused by them. He asked the Ambassador to ensure that the situation reverted to a pre 2004 one.

A member suggested that there should be a proper and deep analysis of the situation for the Palestine problem was symptomatic of a bigger / deeper problem and he questioned how the PLO had been turned around. The emergence and preference of Egypt was another symptom of this machination. There was no common ground among the Palestinians unlike SA where it had been easy to follow who had the upper hand in the National Party and so one could negotiate with such factions. He spoke of the recognition of the two state idea.

An ANC member said the unity of the Palestinians was the question. Was there any choice to negotiating with Hamas? Israel /US had exploited the disunity among the Arabs states and peoples just as the Apartheid regime had balkanized the country. But as the ANC and the PLO were both liberation movements, just as with the ANC, it was important to identify and negotiate with the power holders.

Another member added that without unity of purpose there was no solution and further that the military was not the solution, that a political solution had to be sought, found and implemented.

The Chair in conclusion said that it seemed that there were four issues to be resolved and a political not military solution was required. Israel was about to have elections. Palestine had elections earlier in 2008 and so did the Americans and a change of administration was awaited in America. In the meantime, Gaza and its peoples were punished by Israel just as Israel dealt with Hizbollah. Israel and the Arab League should determine the extent of the power of Hamas and thereafter negotiate accordingly.

With regard to the Hamas rockets, it was said that since 2001 over 8000 rockets from Hamas had pounded Israel, causing death and destruction and there was no Palestinian comment thereon. The statistics did not justify the blaming of Hamas which refused to extend the cease-fire. The majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in a generally admired free and fair election and the result must be accepted. It was clear that Israel had spent some time planning its bombing campaign. There were no definable boundaries and Hamas did not enjoy sole and exclusive control of Gaza and further was limited in its ability and resources to regenerate the area, even if the two state theory was implemented. There was poverty and a deplorable quality of life in Gaza. Further it was difficult if the PLO now started blaming everybody else. The PLO had not attended or spoken at conferences and other negotiating forums for ten years. Fatah must therefore be seen as part and creator of the problem and as such as a common participant in the launching of the rockets. He added that they had been told that every problem came from one side and this could not be true. He asked what was the role of the regional players and especially the role and influence of the major powers, world and regional, lurking in the background.

In conclusion the Ambassador thanked the Committee for the opportunity to meet with them and address them and thanked them for their interest. He added that he was a member of Fatah but tried to reduce his interests therein in subjugation of his duty to speak as Ambassador of all the Palestinians, just as South African Ambassadors did not represent the ANC but all of South Africa but it was true that the results of the 2006 election had strengthened the role of Hamas. Further, he reminded all present that he had tried to analyze, and clarify, the issues but that the role and influence of Israel on the area was paramount. He reminded all that the PLO had been created in exile and was an umbrella body, which spoke with consensus of the disparate views of its membership. While it was no good blaming Hamas, it must be recognized that its role in the current situation was paramount. The struggle with Israel was an ongoing one and must be regarded as a work in progress. No one had the moral authority or capability to unite the Arabs by force. The struggle was not formulated and his authority was to accept and carry over the decisions arrived at by the PLO just as the members of the Committee had obligations not to solely represent one party only but a consensus of the views. He added that from Israel enough was enough and the situation could no longer be tolerated and accepted.

The Chairperson concluded the meeting.