Report of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Visit to
Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria, dated 20
August 2008.
1. Introduction and Background
The Speaker
of the National Assembly (NA) of the Republic
of South Africa raised questions on
how Parliament should respond to the political conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and on the treatment
of Palestinians that live in Israel
proper, who are herein after referred to as Arab-Israeli citizens. The
Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs undertook a visit to Israel, the Palestinian territories of the West
Bank, Gaza Strip and to Syria
in order to gather information, to be able to respond to the questions raised
by the Speaker.
The
delegation travelled to Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria from 21
June through 04 July 2008. It was led by the Chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hon. D.J. Sithole, accompanied by a multiparty
delegation including, Hon. B. Skosana (IFP), Hon. P. Sibande (ANC), Hon. S.
Camerer (DA), and Hon. M. Ramgobin (ANC). The delegation was accompanied by an
official from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), a Director at the Middle
East Desk, Ms Cassandra Mbuyane-Mokone. The delegation was also accompanied by
Parliamentary Researcher, Mr Mpho Mashaba and the Committee Secretary, Ms Dineo
Martin.
This report
is based on the meetings held with various parties to the conflict, in Israel and Palestine.
The delegation was to meet with representatives from the Israel Ministry of
Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Speaker of the Knesset (the
Israel Parliament). These meetings didn’t take place due to conditions imposed
by the government of Israel
on the delegation. The Israel
government demanded that the delegation shouldn’t proceed to Gaza
if they wanted to meet members of the Israel political leadership. The
delegation carefully considered the conditions imposed on it and it took the
principled view that South Africa
as a sovereign state reserves the right to determine its own programmes and to
engage all parties in the conflict, and that no government or party should
impose conditions that will negatively impact on the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. The insistence of the
Israeli government and its parliament to set conditions on the South African
delegation was noted with regret, as the visit provided a good opportunity to
hear all sides of the conflict.
Prior to
departing for Israel
the delegation had submitted a request to Israeli authorities to meet with the
Speaker of the Palestinian Parliament, Mr Abdel Aziz Duwaik, who was in prison.
After waiting throughout the whole period of the visit to hear whether the
delegation would be allowed to see Mr Duwaik permission was refused on the last
day when delegation was to depart for Syria.
2. Israel
In Israel the delegation met with South Africa’s
representatives at the South African Mission, Jewish non-governmental
organisations, lobby groups, academics and business people. South African Israel based
Jewish lobby groups also offered their perspectives into the challenges
relating to reaching a settlement. The delegation noted conflicting views among
the Israelis on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The delegation also met with
Arab-Israeli Members of Parliament, local authorities, Arab-Israeli academics,
Arab-Israeli non-governmental organisations, lobby groups and ordinary
Arab-Israeli citizens to hear their side of the story. Visits to historical
sites and national monuments revealed another side to the conflict and
illuminated some of the nuanced issues that play a critical role in the
resolution or non-resolution of the conflict.
3. South African Foreign
Mission Perspectives on the Conflict
Upon its
arrival in Israel on 22 June
2008, the delegation was briefed by the South African representative in Israel,
Ambassador Fumanekile Gqiba. The Ambassador noted that the Spier Initiative is
a “dead matter”, at least as far as South Africa’s role in resolving
the conflict is concerned. He pointed out that the Mission’s
relations with the Israeli Government had not improved after the Spier
Initiative, which was an initiative by South Africa to broker talks
between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation
(PLO) in 2004.
The Ambassador
pointed to a need to strike a balance between constructive engagement and
criticism. The Ambassador warned of South African press statements that are
severely critical of the Israeli government, which he argues serve as an
obstacle to South Africa’s
constructive engagement with the Israeli government. He pointed to statements
against the Government of Israel, such as those by the Former Minister of
Intelligence, Mr Ronnie Kasrils as counterproductive to the objectives of the Mission. These objectives
were however, not outlined to the delegation.
The
Ambassador pointed out that there is a complicated interaction between the
reality of the Peace Process and the Government’s vision of how it should be
supported. This therefore poses a challenge for South Africa in terms of engaging
extensively with the range of political, economic and security issues. For
instance, the Ambassador mentioned that upon his arrival in Tel Aviv, it was
difficult for the Mission
to engage with the Government of Israel. The Ambassador pointed out that when
he first arrived at the Mission
he had not had a complete and in depth briefing from the Department of Foreign
Affairs, and he complained of inadequate support from the Middle-East Desk. The
Ambassador therefore took the initiative and engaged the Government of Israel.
Without mentioning any specific achievements, His Excellency noted that much
progress had been made and that the Mission
had been able to make significant inroads. He pointed out that the Mission is now effectively
communicating with the Government of Israel.
The
Ambassador pointed to a challenge presented by the corruption allegations
against Israel’s
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. His Excellency noted that should Olmert be charged,
it would mark the reversal of the peace process, as he had unlike other Prime
Ministers before him made efforts to negotiate with the Palestinian National
Authority (PNA).
The
Ambassador did not mention however, what progress had been achieved in the
negotiations. He was also not able to mention any possible alternatives to
Olmert and neither did he state what options are there for South Africa to
pursue in its attempts to assist in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The Ambassador emphasised that Olmert is the only Israeli leader that has
constructively engaged in the peace process since the Olso Accords were signed
in 1993. However the delegation noted a huge body of knowledge that didn’t
agree with the assessment of His Excellency the Ambassador
4. Perspectives of Jews and
Arabs living in Israel
Jews and
Arab-Israelis hold completely different perspectives on the nature of the
conflict and how to achieve its resolution. A distinction needs to be made
however between the perspectives of Palestinians living in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and those of Arab-Israelis living in Israel proper. The perspectives are
so divergent that the struggle of the Palestinians that hold Israeli
citizenship is quite distinct and different to that of the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and those in the Diaspora.
4.1 Arab-Israeli
Perspectives
The
delegation held several meetings with Palestinians that held Israeli
citizenship. The first meeting that took place was with the Mayors’ Committee
from the Yaffa Council. It was pointed out that there are 1.2 million Arabs
that held Israeli citizenship, which translates into 20 percent of the Israel
population. This excludes Palestinians who live in East
Jerusalem, who only held residency permits that may be revoked at
any given moment. Arab-Israelis are the minority in Israel and thus face serious
hardships and do not enjoy full rights.
For Arab-Israelis the main issue is the dichotomy between on the one hand the
pursuit of an exclusive Jewish State by the Israeli government and on the other
hand the Arab-Israeli pursuit for inclusion, co-existence and equal rights.
The racial lines are clearly drawn out in Israel such that even Arab-Israeli
prisoners do not get the same treatment as Jewish prisoners.
It was said
that Arabs that accepted Israeli citizenship did so as a measure of compromise
and a gesture of wanting peaceful coexistence. They wanted to be part of the
solution. For them the one way of doing this was by being on the inside, rather
than fighting from the outside. The
Mayors’ Committee pointed out that since Israel’s
intentions are to establish an exclusive Jewish State, the presence of Arabs in
Israel therefore serves to
derail the project, and hence they are regarded as a strategic threat to the
creation of the Zionist
State.
The Mayors’
Committee noted that the Two-States solution is a misnomer, since the
developments on the ground showed that there is no state to speak of for the
Palestinians. Palestinians do not even have control over their government, that
is, the Palestinian National Authority. They pointed to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a
viable solution to the conflict, which has been totally ignored by the Israel
government. The Initiative calls for a land for peace deal, where Israel would
withdraw from the occupied territories and allow for the return of Palestinian
refugees. However, the major obstacle to
this Initiative is Israel’s
refusal to negotiate peace according to the terms of the Initiative. It was
argued that a bi-national state with a strong constitution that upholds the
rights of all citizens would be an ideal which many Palestinians would agree
with.
The Mayors’
Committee expressed the feeling that the international community is not putting
pressure on Israel
to comply with previous agreements and to respond positive to the Arab Peace
Initiative.
The
corruption allegations against Prime Minister Olmert, have led to calls for the
dissolution of the Knesset and the resignation of the Prime Minister. The
Mayors’ Committee noted that they do not see any value in this exercise as it
is not expected to bring positive change to the circumstances of Arab citizens
of Israel.
Prime Minister Olmert is seen as someone who is fighting for his own political
survival and hence resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and
improving the conditions of Arab-Israelis is seen as a secondary objective for
him.
They
believed that Olmert has considered the option to engage in a war so as to
divert the attention of citizens, but he was worried about the high price he
would have to pay for starting such a war. It seemed therefore that Olmert
decided to focus his attention to the building of his political home, the
Kadima Party. Olmert has decided to focus on this aspect, as well as the talks
being held with the PNA, and this has worked for him as it allowed the focus to
be shifted away from the real issues that affect Israeli body politics. The
members of the Mayors’ Committee believed that these negotiations were not
meant to achieve anything, as it was under Olmert that substantial hectares of
Palestinian land was annexed and a phenomenal growth of old and new settlements
by Israel.
4.2 October 2000 Events
October 2000
was a period of strikes, protests and demonstrations by Arab-Israelis and on one
occasion during the riots the Israeli police opened fire on the demonstrators,
and as a result 13 Arab-Israeli citizens were killed. An inquiry, led by
Theodore Or, hence the name Or Commission, was launched to investigate the turn
of events. The Commission found that the Israeli police had poorly managed the
riots and used excessive force. The Commission recommended that those
responsible should be charged. Mr Ehud Barak was also condemned along with the
Internal Security Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, as they were instrumental in
portraying Arab-Israeli citizens as “the enemy that needed to be dealt with”,
hence the use of excessive force.
Arab-Israeli
citizens view the October 2000 events as an act of aggression by the Israeli
government. The riots were widespread throughout the country and the Israeli
police used excessive force in most instances to control the riots.
Arab-Israeli citizens contend that they never sought to revenge for the October
2000 events as they had hoped that the matter would be dealt with through
proper channels and in terms of the rule of law. However, no tangible result
had emanated since the recommendations of the Or Commission. The cases against
the officers responsible for the deaths of Arab-Israeli civilians were all
eventually closed without indictments being served on those responsible.
For purposes
of justice and reaching a closure for the victims and families of the October
2000 events, the Arab-Israeli non-governmental organisation (NGO) Adalah has
been following up on the cases. However, the organisation is in need of
financial support and legal services, as it has proven very expensive to
conduct this exercise. Humanitarian support for the victims is also sought.
Adalah is also seeking to make a case for a fresh evaluation to be made into
the October 2000 events by an independent commission.
4.3 Denial of Human Rights
to Arab-Israeli
Citizens by the Israel
Government
It was noted
that the Israeli government performs direct and indirect forms of
discrimination against Arab-Israeli citizens. It was noted that even though
Arab-Israelis make up 20 percent of the Israeli population, they however
receive only 5-8 percent national budget allocations.
Government makes substantially little allocation for Arab-Israeli cultural projects
in stark contrast to their fellow Jewish-Israel citizens, and this was said to
constitute a direct form of discrimination.
Arab-Israeli
schools do not get a similar level of support as Jewish schools from
Government. Most Arab-Israeli schools are aided through funding from the
international community.
It was observed that there is a high drop out rate among Arab-Israelis, because
Israel
government policies discourage Arab-Israeli children from remaining in school.
They do this for instance, by not providing for the recruitment of Arab-Israeli
teachers and to build more classes for the Arabic-Israeli community in the
national budget. Most of
the classes are overcrowded and thus pupils do not get sufficient attention
from teachers. This means that is it is difficult to attend adequately to
learners that experience difficulties.
While the
government allocates money for residential building projects for Jews, it does
not do the same for Arab-Israelis. Moreover, building plans for Arab-Israelis
are stalled and not approved at all.
There is a backlog of approximately ±7000 houses for Arabic-Israeli citizens.
Many houses that belong to the Arabs are not connected to sewage systems, whist
the Jewish homes are connected to the main sewer system.
One form of
indirect discrimination is through benefits given to families of those who
serve in the army. Since Arab-Israelis do not serve in the army it means
therefore that they are excluded from benefits received by Jewish families. Age
restriction is used to keep Arab-Israelis from being admitted into higher
learning institutions.
Following
the outbreak of violence after the signing of the Olso Accords many forms of
restrictions were imposed on Arab-Israelis and Palestinians in Israel.
Movements to and from the Palestinian territories were highly restricted.
Family reunions and contacts were stopped, thus affecting hundreds of thousands
of Arab-Israelis. Those who were out of Israel at the time of the unrest
were not allowed to re-enter the country and security was given as the reason
for these actions. In 2007, the Gaza Strip was included into the list of
territories from which people would not be allowed to enter Israel.
The basic
laws of Israel,
which act as a substitute for the constitution, say nothing about the rights of
Arab-Israelis. The basic laws do not affect every other law in Israel and also
cannot be easily struck down. This therefore leaves ample room for
interpretation of Israeli law. The courts also tend to interpret the country’s
laws differently, and hence some of the legal challenges brought by
Arab-Israelis are successful in some courts while they are unsuccessful in
others. Each time a discriminatory law is successfully challenged in court, the
Knesset simply re-writes it and gives it a new name.
Some of the
Arab-Israeli villages in Israel
are not recognised by the government, which means therefore that they are
excluded from state planning and the national budget. The villages do not
appear on the map of Israel.
As a result of the neglect, poverty in these unrecognised villages is extremely
high in comparison to other areas in Israel.
Arab-Israelis
are represented in the Knesset, but the representatives are not recognised as
members of Parliament as they are treated in a manner that does not befit the
status of a Member of Parliament and as a result are unable to effectively
influence Parliament’s agenda even on issues that affect Arab-Israelis. They
are however determined to go on with the struggle to change their conditions.
In November
2007 the mayor of the city of Jerusalem
announced plans to develop East Jerusalem,
which was internationally regarded as a unilateral and illegal act of
annexation. As a result the Palestinians living in Jerusalem
and East Jerusalem in particular do not enjoy
full citizenship. Instead, they have residency permits that can be revoked at
the whim of the State. On a comparative scale Arab-Israelis citizens that live
in Israel proper enjoy more
rights than Palestinians in Jerusalem.
Israel therefore faces
accusations of using separatist policies (or what some in Israel refer to
as apartheid racial segregation). Although the Jews in Israel are divided both
ideologically and religiously, they however tend to agree on issues affecting
Arab-Israelis citizens or Palestinians in general, and that means that they
tend to side with Government on such issues.
4.4 Mossawa Perspectives on
the Struggle to Establish Arab Institutions in Israel
Mossawa is an advocacy centre for Arab citizens
of Israel.
The centre is staffed mainly by Arab-Israeli academics.
The primary aim of Mossawa is to develop institutions for Arab-Israelis or
Palestinian citizens of Israel,
since the existing institutions in Israel have neglected to
accommodate their concerns.
Mossawa
pointed out that the PLO is regarded as the single legitimate representative of
the Palestinian cause inside and outside Israel.
However, it is not clear to what extent Arab-Israelis form part of the struggle
of the Palestinians in Palestinian territories and the Diaspora. Since the PLO
is not recognised as a political party in Israel,
this has therefore created a parallel Palestinian struggle, where Arab-Israelis
conduct their own struggle in Israel,
and Palestinians in the Palestinian territories and in the Diaspora are also
engaged in their own struggle.
Mossawa
pointed out that the status of the Palestinian cause is in a critical state,
because Arab-Israelis and Palestinian refugees are isolated in their struggles
and there is no united voice among the Palestinians to advance the struggle of
its entire peoples regardless of where they are located.
It was noted that the PLO voice has been negatively affected, especially since
the passing on of its Chairman, Yasser Arafat. Hamas is not in the fold of the
PLO and that weakens the collective strength of the Palestinian struggle.
Mossawa pointed out that neither Hamas nor Fatah showed concern with the
conditions of Arab-Israelis inside Israel itself.
The Oslo process did not deal with the issues affecting
Arab-Israelis who are facing discrimination inside Israel. The future of Arab-Israelis
is uncertain, because even Prime Minister Olmert has often raised the debate on
the identity of the Jewish State, which inadvertently affects the continued
presence of Arab-Israelis in Israel.
By implication, this means that other nationalities may not have a place in a
purely Jewish State. This also means that institutions that serve other
nationalities in Israel
may find it difficult to exist. Israel’s
national symbols do not reflect anything that has to do with Arab-Israelis
citizens and/or Palestinians. The latter’s historical connection to the country
is not reflected in the same way as that of the Jews.
Preliminary
research results of a study by Mossawa on the contribution of international
community show that the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are
central to the survival of Israel.
Normally the EU sets conditions for the funding it gives to countries that it
is in cooperation with, but in the case of Israel the EU does not attach such
conditions especially in regard to human rights issues.
Therefore, the US and the EU
tend to ignore Israel’s
human rights record in its dealings with the State, which is quite different
from how these economic superpowers normally deal with some of their economic
partners. This
has therefore begged the question as to why the United
States and Europe support Israel in this manner.
Mossawa
seeks to use the position of being an Arab-Israeli institution in Israel to
advance the struggle of Arab-Israelis citizens and/or the Palestinian cause.
However, the organisation is not optimistic about assistance from the Arab
States. It is the view of Mossawa that the Arab world has left the Palestinians
to their own devices. Mossawa therefore seeks to reach out to the Jewish public
that is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to sensitize them about some of
the problems that Arab-Israeli citizens and Palestinians in general have to
grapple with in order to assist in lobbying the Israeli Parliament. Mossawa is
currently involved with lobbying projects directly with Members of the Knesset.
This is a challenge however as attention is increasingly focussed on Iran, where there is a possibility of war
breaking out against Israel
and its allies. Thus, references are often made in the Knesset to the ‘next
war’ with Iran.
This issue has only served to weaken the plight of Arab-Israelis and
Palestinians in general.
Some gains
have been made however in lobbying efforts to the Knesset. For instance, for
the first time Palestinian representatives are now given a breakdown of the
national budget before it is approved so that they can make their inputs.
5. Jewish Perspectives
There are
divergent views within the Jewish Israeli community. Many are in support of the
actions of the Israeli government, while others oppose such actions on the
grounds that they are contributing to the escalation of the conflict with
Palestinians.
5.1 Jewish Settlements in
the Occupied Territories
The Jewish
NGO, Peace Now, has been monitoring the building of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. The organisation thus uses
this information to run advocacy and awareness programmes for Israeli citizens.
Peace Now noted that a large cross-section of the Jewish public is ignorant of
the issues pertaining to the conflict with Palestinians.
The mission
of Peace Now is to generate an understanding among Israelis of exactly what is
happening around them and affect the future of their country. It was pointed
out that although Israel
occupied Palestinian territories in the aftermath of the 1967 war it never
sought to annex those territories because the sheer number of Palestinians
living there would make it impossible to advance the idea of establishing a
Jewish State. Annexing
those territories would have meant that civil rights would have to be extended
to the populations living there (including the right to vote), which was never
in the plans of the State of Israel. Moreover, in one Unitary
State of Israel the Palestinians would have
been in the majority, which would have destroyed plans to establish an
exclusive Jewish State.
It is
reported that there are currently 450,000 Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories
in the West Bank. As a result of this
development, which is supported by various state policies some observations
have been made including the following:
- There is no freezing of the building of new
settlements.
- There are no removals of Outposts – which
are settlements considered to be illegal by both the Israeli Government
and the Palestinian National Authority. The delegation observed that in
spite of their illegality the Outposts are served with water and
electricity and other basic services. Moreover, the Outposts benefit from
protection by the Israel Defence Force (IDF).
- There are no removals of checkpoints in the
Occupied Territories, which are making life
very difficult for Palestinians as they daily face highly restrict
movement.
It was
mentioned that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has yet to give a direct order for
settlement building to be frozen. This is unlike the former Prime Minister, the
late Yitzak Rabin, who directly gave an order for settlement building to be
frozen.
A majority
of settlers do not want to be part of the State of Palestine. It was noted that
this makes it difficult to reach a solution on the outlines of the Palestinian
State (which will determine the final status of the Palestinian State).The
Green Line that was created in 1967 gave 22 percent of the land to Palestinians
and handed 78 percent to the Jews. However, the settlements have allowed Jews
to acquire more Palestinian land, thus leaving questions as to where will a
future Palestinian State be created.
5.2 Jewish Academic
Perspectives on Israel’s
Security
Israel’s
former Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Dr Dore Gold of the Jerusalem
Centre for Public Affairs spoke of the threat faced by the State of Israel. He
traced Arab aggression against Israel
to the war of 1948, when the UN formally declared Israel’s Arab neighbours as the
aggressors. Israel
has since then sought secure national borders or what is now referred to as
‘defensible boundaries’. This term opens itself to wide interpretation as it
does not strictly define the national border line as the strategic point from
which a state should start to defend itself. In fact, it creates the impression
that a state my occupy territories in order to ensure that it puts itself in an
advantageous position to be able to defend itself. In this way, Dr Gold was
justifying Israel’s
occupation of the Jordan Valley in the West Bank and the occupation of the
Golan Heights whose control has been removed from Syria. Since Israel arguably faces a permanent threat from
its neighbours, the occupation of the territories is used as a justification to
prevent any attack that may come from Israel’s hostile neighbours.
Dr Gold
pointed out that current developments indicate that the threat is still
present. He mentioned for instance that Iran’s
President has publicly threatened to destroy the state of Israel. Such
statements are of course open to interpretation and as Dr Gold pointed out, Israel has
consulted with legal experts who advised the state that such threats were
tantamount to contraventions of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
Dr Gold
pointed to the threat emanating from Palestinian territories, and he stated
that some new militant groups had emerged from there. He concluded therefore
that it is important to build the separation walls and fences to limit their
movements so that they are not able to launch attacks in Israel. The
former Israel
Ambassador to the UN spoke on the issue of equal rights for Palestinians, and
he argued that in some cases these had to be limited because a majority of
constituencies were used as safe havens for extremist groups. He related this
action to the emergence of Hamas, which he contended benefited from the late
PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat creating the conditions for Hamas to operate in
areas administered by the PNA.
Dr Gold
pointed to the issue of Palestinian refugees and the threat posed by the
Palestinian population residing in Jordan. He noted that as a result of the threat
emanating from Jordan, Israel therefore has to maintain a presence in
the Jordan Valley. The former Ambassador stated
that the arrival of Palestinian refugees from the Diaspora would threaten the
fibre of the Israeli State, which is essentially intended to be a Jewish
state, as currently Jews formed the majority of the population in Israel. Dr Gold
argued that the return of over 6 million Palestinians that have taken refuge in
other countries to Israel
would mean that the Palestinian majority would be governed by a Jewish
minority, which would make Israel
an apartheid state, as it was the case in South Africa. In terms of what makes up the fibre of the
State of Israel and national identity it was pointed out the single most
unifying factor among Israeli citizens is service to the army. All Jews and
some Druze and Bedouins do serve in the army, unlike Arab-Israelis citizens.
This means therefore that the latter are excluded from the bond that unifies
the Israeli society. As the former
Ambassador stressed “the army service creates the bond of society”.
Dr Gold
defended Jewish settlements by stating that they are built on disputed territory.
Therefore, Israel
is under no obligation to abide by UN resolutions in this regard, and aside
from that it is also an internal security matter.
5.3. The Abraham Fund and the
Struggle for Co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians
There is a huge
siege mentality amongst Israelis due to the geopolitical positioning of the
state, the Abraham Fund pointed out.
Israel
is mostly surrounded by hostile neighbours. Ironically this perception is
fuelled by the policies pursued by the state of Israel.
Moreover, Jews tend to dehumanise Arabs which poses significant challenge to
integration.
In terms of
in equalities in the Israeli society it was noted that only 18 percent of Arab
women were formally employed in contrast to 56 percent of Jewish women. Over
30,000 Arab graduates are currently not employed. The general perceptions held
by Jewish employers of Palestinians pose a great challenge to ensuring that the
graduates find gainful employment. Therefore, it was noted that projects are
required to build the confidence of Israeli companies and Arab graduates to
change their negative perceptions of each other and the Abraham Fund has been
involved in such projects.
The Abraham
Fund is an Israeli NGO made of Jews and Arabs, whose main purpose is to promote
the co-existence of Jews and Arabs. Hence, the organisation is running multiple
projects to promote tolerance and integration among Jews and Arab-Israelis.
This is done particularly with Jewish and Arab children. Some of the projects
the organisation is running focus on teaching Jews about human rights. Some
projects focus on building confidence between the Israel police force and the
Arab-Israeli community. Much of the work of the Fund is done at community level
where tensions are at their highest level.
The
Government of Israel is not in full support of the initiatives of the Abraham
Fund. This is in contrast to the general expectation that Government should
take the lead in promoting integration amongst the citizens, but the Israeli
Government has showed very little support. Therefore, most of the funding for
the projects undertaken by the Abraham Fund is derived from the international
community. Government has tended to fund projects that best suit its immediate
interests.
5.3.1 Telfed, South African
Jewish Lobby Group
The
delegation met with Telfed, the South African Zionist Federation. Telfed
provides assistance to Southern African Jews that are visiting and want to
settle in Israel.
Its mission is to develop
and encourage the Olim
achieve successful absorption into Israel. It is a
lobby group made up of Jewish business people and professionals that originate
from South Africa and have
settled in Israel.
It was pointed out that Telfed is an apolitical organisation. The delegation
met with Telfed’s members of the management committee including Mr Sydney
Shapiro, Mr Hertzel Katz, Mr Dave Bloom, Mr Avram Joffe, Mr Maurice Ostroff, Ms
Adelle Bassin and Mr. Maish Issacson (Chairperson of Telfed).
Telfed
contends that unlike Palestinians, Jews have done more for the people by among
others building homes, whereas their counterparts had received assistance from
abroad but nobody knew what happened to the funding for social development.
The group
felt that South Africa must analyse the situation in the Middle East and use the outcome of that analysis to
understand the reasons why a peaceful settlement has not been reached thus far.
More specifically, Telfed hoped for the delegation’s assistance in raising with
Hamas the release of the captured
Israeli soldier, Gilat Shalit. Mr Isaacson stressed that people like Shalit are
not soldiers in the true sense of the word, but people that are contributing to
the defence of the Israelis. The Gilat Shalit matter is a political issue
between Israel
and Hamas and broadly affects other political issues between Israelis and
Palestinians.
The group
also felt that South Africa
can look into the issue of reconciling Jews and Palestinians based on the country’s experience with the national
reconciliation process.
Telfed noted
however that the Middle-East conflict does not have people of similar stature
as President Nelson Mandela, who could find a way towards a peaceful
settlement. The chairperson of Telfed, Mr Isaacson, reiterated that he had the
uttermost respect for President Mandela, but it was unfortunate that
Palestinians do not have a leader of his stature to speak on their behalf.
Telfed
alluded to the Charter of the African National Congress (ANC), and noted that
it is unlike the Hamas Charter. Telfed claims to have seen the Hamas Charter
and has noted that it points to violence as a “permanent strategy”, whereas the
ANC Charter espoused “equality for all.” Telfed argues that Hamas teaches
children from age 3 (three) to hate and thus for them it is impossible to have
peaceful negotiations in that kind of scenario.
The South
African delegation asked how come Palestinians find themselves in the same
position that they were in when Chairman Yasser Arafat was still the leader of
the Palestinians. The question was asked to explain the fact that Israel viewed
Arafat as a problem, and now that he is no more, there does not seem to be
movement towards a solution. Also it was questioned as to how come Israelis
speak of not having a suitable partner to negotiate with, whereas it is
possible that the Palestinians also complain of the same thing about their
counterparts. Also, the question was raised as to how come Israel failed to see Hamas as a partner in the
negotiations, and why Israel
contends that Hamas does not want to recognise the State of Israel. It was
pointed out that this is an irony as Hamas had agreed to be part of the
Palestinian Government, which by implication meant that the organisation
recognised the fact that the State of Palestine would have to exist alongside
the State of Israel. Therefore the main question was whether Israel had
given Hamas the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Palestinians as an
organisation that was heading the Palestinian National Authority. The question
on the actual definition of the Israel-Palestine problem was asked and it was
noted that both sides had not been able to resolve the problem because most
probably they had “not diagnosed it properly.” The delegation pointed out that
it also learnt in other meetings that Israeli children are taught about an Israel that
does not have the State of Palestine adjacent to it. This therefore poses a
question on the Israeli education system and whether or not the Israeli
authorities do believe in the Two-States solution. In fact it had been pointed
out that most of the areas on which Israeli settlements had been built were
marked as disputed land. Part of the disputed areas includes the Jordan valley, which apparently is rich in water
resources that are critical to the survival of the Israeli State,
hence the ongoing water drilling.
Mr Katz of
Telfed, responded by repeating that Hamas encourages violence and that it
spreads hate propaganda. He also stated that the Zionist Movement is a national
liberation movement. He continued by saying that when Jews arrived in Palestine
they lived in tents and the Zionist movement worked towards the development of
its people without the massive assistance of Europe and other countries. He
stated that Palestinian leaders have to learn from the experiences of South
African liberation movements that advocated for peace. Mr Katz added that Hamas actions prompt
strong reactions from Israel’s
right wing elements.
Telfed
responded to the question on the Two-States solution by stating the current
Israeli Government was brought in with a mandate to withdraw from the Gaza
Strip, and prepare the ground for the establishment of the Palestinian State.
However, they described the reaction from the Palestinian side as negative.
Telfed stated that it would look into the issue of the education that is taught
to Israeli children that does not envisage a Palestinian State
alongside the State of Israel.
Ms Bassin
stated that the holocaust belongs to Israelis and they will not let anyone
appropriate it and use it for their own purposes, the same way they feel that
apartheid belongs to South Africans and that the latter should not allow others
elsewhere in the world to take the word apartheid and use it to wage their own
struggles.
Telfed
reiterated the plea to the delegation to speak to Hamas about the release of
Gilat Shalit. It was pointed out however that the Government of Israel had
refused to meet with the delegation if it proceeded with its intentions to go
to the Gaza Strip. In fact Israel
had kept the response on the delegation’s request to meet with the Speaker of
the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and at the time it was not clear
whether the request would be granted or not.
5.3.2 The Geneva Initiative,
Russian-Jewish Lobby Group
There are
Israeli organisations that have a different view of how the State should pursue
a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. One of them is the Geneva
Initiative, an Israeli non-governmental think tank that is still fairly new, as
it has been in existence for four and half years. It is made up mainly of
Russian-Jews (Jews that migrated from Russia). The organisation’s
existence centres on the promotion of the Geneva Accord as the best model for
reaching a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The
Geneva Accord is a blueprint for reaching a final settlement on the
Israel-Palestine conflict. It is a model framework agreement based on the
negotiation parameters set by the Clinton
administration in December 2000. The Geneva Initiative’s primary mission is to
lobby for a political solution founded on bilateralism.
The
organisation leans heavily towards Zionism in the belief that Jewish national
identity is important to be preserved in order to avoid running into problems
that Jews have come across in history. It was noted however that Jews live well
currently in various parts of the world, but the promotion of Jewish national
identity, which is the primary mission of the Zionist movement, can only be
preserved by having a viable Jewish State.
The Geneva
Initiative claims it seeks reconciliation among Israelis, both Jewish and Arab.
The organisation did not state however whether the process of reconciliation
should include Palestinians in the occupied territories or not. The Geneva
Initiative does work with Israeli and Arab organisations, but on separate
parallel channels. Thus it has two offices, one in Tel Aviv and another one in
Ramallah. The Geneva Initiative works on two separate tracks. In the first
track they work with target groups, such as Parliamentarians, youth and
religious groups and journalists, to promote education about the
Israel-Palestine conflict and the Geneva Accord as the solution to this
conflict. They also work with the Russian constituency in Israel which
was said constitute 20 percent of the population. The Russian constituency is
said to be very right wing, and yet highly ignorant of the issues involved in
the conflict. In fact it was noted that there is so much ignorance and taboo,
especially with regard to speaking of Jerusalem
and the holy sites that many didn’t want to hear about a possible solution.
The second
track of the work of the Geneva Initiative involves writing on policy matters
and produces position papers on the possible solution to the conflict. For
instance, the Geneva Initiative organised a two-day seminar immediately after
the Annapolis
conference with experts in the field and thereafter produced a document
outlining the recommendations on how to go about the negotiations for a
peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The experts included
Israelis security agents, diplomats, experts from the United States
and professionals from the Palestinian side. It is said President Shimon Peres
also attended.
The Geneva
Initiative supports the peace negotiations between Prime Minister Olmert and
President Mahmoud Abbas. But, the organisation does not perceive Hamas as a
suitable partner in the peace negotiations. Their assessment of Hamas is that
the organisation is not interested in reaching a final solution. For instance,
the Geneva Initiative says that Hamas demands land in exchange for Israel’s
security, while the Geneva Initiative advocates for a ‘Land for Peace’ deal, including handing over Arab East
Jerusalem to Palestinians for them to set up the capital of their State. ‘Land
for Israel’s security’ and ‘Land for Peace’ are two concepts that differ in
respect that the latter means withdrawal from the Occupied Territories with
minor adjustments to the map, while the former said to be advocated by Hamas
only means Israel may only retain its security for a nominal period of 29 years
for example. After the 29 years the two parties would have to renegotiate a
fresh deal, the Geneva Initiative claims.
The organisation is therefore not prepared to work with Hamas due to the
position taken by Government and its allies not to recognise Hamas, which it
labelled as an ‘extremist’ organisation. They stated that they are not
interested in strengthening Hamas but they prefer to strengthen President
Mahmoud Abbas, who is negotiating with Israel. They are interested in
strengthening the PNA to negotiate for a political solution based on the Geneva
Accord model, which advocates for among other things:
- The
freezing of building of settlements
- The
removal of checkpoints; and
- The
release of Palestinian prisoners.
The Geneva
Accord also covers political and highly contentious issues including the status
of Jerusalem, the permanent borders of the Palestinian State, as well as the issue of refugees.
Strengthening
the PNA to negotiate for these issues, including the broader political solution
would ensure that Palestinians do not form solidarity with ‘extremists’, that
is, Hamas according to the Geneva Initiative.
The Geneva
Initiative advocates for the Two-States solution with a separate independent Palestinian State
and the state of Israel
that retains its Jewish character. The NGO believes the work of the Quartet is
not adequate to reach a solution in the Middle-East. They also believe that
American policy over the past 7 (seven) years actually contributed to the
problem and not the solution. They stated for instance, the United States
disengaged with the Peace Process and also did not promote policies that served
to bring Israelis and Palestinians together in order to negotiate a solution to
the conflict.
The Geneva
Initiative believes it is in the interest of Israelis to support a viable
Palestinian State along side the state of Israel, because should Palestinians
not have the opportunity to build a state then inevitably Israel would have a
government run by the Jews who would be in the minority and would rule over
Palestinians who would form the majority. This would ultimately be like South Africa before the advent of democracy, and
Israel would become an apartheid State. The Jews would control everything
and not accord equal rights to Palestinians. But also, if equal rights were to
be accorded to Palestinians, Israel
would lose its Jewish character as the elections would be lost to the
Palestinian majority. It was emphasised that this is not in the interest of the
Geneva Initiative, because they support a Zionist Jewish State.
6. Perspectives from the
West Bank and Gaza
Strip
6.1 Perspectives from
Palestinian Academics
The
Middle-East conflict is a complex mix of geo-politics, where the world’s
superpowers have set a firm agenda to further their own interests, albeit at
the expense of the broader Arab community. This was noted in a meeting with
PASSIA (The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International
Affairs), where the delegation was given an insightful analysis of the politics
of the region, which linked the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to the
complex geo-politics of Middle-East region.
PASSIA noted
that currently Israel is
pre-occupied with Iran
and the perceived threat that this country poses to the continued existence and
growth of the Jewish State in the Middle-East. Hence, Israel has with the assistance of its biggest
ally, the United States,
been involved in efforts to co-opt its neighbouring states in order for them to
remain passive in any possible conflict with Iran.
According to
PASSIA, Israel’s
allies are using a triangular approach in dealing with the affairs of the
Middle-East. For instance, Germany
has undertaken the security agenda, while France
is advancing an economic agenda and Britain has assumed a combination
of both agendas. In a further show of the superpowers’ vested interest in the
Middle-East, PASSIA has noted the European Union Representative for Common
Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Javier Solana has happened to be present in all
the major conferences dealing with the Middle-East Peace Process. Germany’s
preoccupation with the security agenda was recently made clear with the holding of the Berlin Conference where US$240
million was offered to the PNA in order to assist in building its security
infrastructure.
Indications
are that Israel
is not interested in reaching a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Israel
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and her Palestinian counterpart have met over 50
times and yet there is no way forward. Prime Minister Olmert and President
Abbas also meet every two weeks, but thus far there is no clear definition of
an agreement.
There is a
crisis of leadership that plagues the groups that are pursuing the Palestinian
cause. At the core of the problem is that the different organisations and
factions differ on the vision of a future Palestinian state. On the one hand,
Hamas currently enjoys the support of the majority of Palestinians, but does
not enjoy international recognition, particularly from the West, where the
organisation is labelled as a terrorist organisation.
President
Abbas does not possess enough clout either. His political life is dependent on
the forces that are at play. He cannot initiate action and neither can he react
to any new development without the approval of the stakeholders, including Israel, the western superpowers, as well as the
people of Palestine.
He is merely seen as a representative of the political elite. He also does not
have a constituency. This emphasises the point by PASSIA that he is ‘floating’.
Israel’s
neighbour, Jordan, similar to President Abbas is also seen as a floating State.
As a landlocked state, much of Jordan’s
fortunes rely on the acquiescence of its neighbours. Jordan cannot therefore afford to
make any bold pronouncements on the Middle-East conflict, lest it risk
antagonising any one of its neighbouring States who might make life difficult
for the Jordanians, who are enjoying relative stability. Jordan has however been involved in negotiations
with Israel on land sharing
in respect of the Jordan Valley, which Israel has identified as key to its
security interests.
The
Palestinians lack a strong coherent leadership. The options are very limited.
On the one hand The PNA that does not possess real authority. Neither does it
have a comprehensive plan for the future Palestinian state. The PLO currently
exists in name only. It is represented by a central committee, which has failed
to convene a meeting of the PLO in the last 12 years. Thus the PLO is seen as being moribund. Its
agenda is still largely influenced by events of the past.
Hamas’
liberation and government agenda is proving unworkable. Governing has imposed
many constraints on Hamas’ liberation strategy. This is compounded by the fact
that it does not have recognition from Israel and the international
community. Hamas has however indicated its intentions to be part of a revived
PLO.
Palestinians
are now looking eastwards for a way forward. Iranian Shiite scholars are making
a strong case for the future of Muslim Arabs and thus inspire the hopes of
Arabs in the Middle-East.
The current
status quo is a recipe for disaster it is argued by PASSIA. This is due to a
growing militancy by the younger upcoming generations that are full of anguish
over the actions of the Israeli government.
They are also learning from the mistakes of their forefathers and
therefore this raises questions as to what the future will look like.
6.2 Perspectives from
Members of Hamas in the West Bank
The
delegation met with Dr Nasser Al-Shaer, (Former Deputy Prime Minister) and Dr
Mohammad Ibrahim Barghouti (Former Minister of Labour). Dr Mariam Salih, the
Former Minister of Women Affairs, who had recently been released from prison in
Israel
was to attend the meeting, but could not due to other commitments. Below is an
account of how Hamas views the Israel-Palestine conflict.
On January
25, 2006 Hamas won the parliamentary elections by a comfortable margin (74
seats to Fatah’s 45) and thereby won the right to form the Palestinian
government. Hamas however ran into problems in its relations with the
government of President Abbas. In June 2007 Hamas was ousted from government,
but the organisation decided to maintain control of the Gaza Strip, an act that
was largely seen as coup.
It was
stated that the stand taken by Hamas with regard to reaching a peaceful
settlement with Israel
seemed strange to the outside world but is informed by a complex set of
variables. For instance, Hamas is not formally recognised by Israel. Hamas
is therefore not participating in the peace talks, but has given the green
light to President Abbas to do so. Hamas has also provided a safety network to
Abbas in order to allow him to talk to Israel without any obstacles. This
of course has baffled many, which has led to questions as to how come would
Hamas agree to Palestinians engaging in peace talks with Israel, whereas the
latter regards Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Part of the reason, it was
pointed out by The former Cabinet Ministers, is that as the President of the
PNA, President Abbas is there to represent the interests of Palestinians and
therefore he derives his mandate from the people. Similarly, in reaching an
agreement with Israel,
President Abbas will need to take the package offered by Israel and
present it to the Palestinians, who will agree or disagree to it through a
referendum, in order to make it “an agreement of the people”. Therefore, Hamas
is prepared to go along with any agreement provided that Palestinians agree to
it first and does not want to be seen as an obstacle towards reaching a
peaceful resolution with Israel.
Hence, Hamas has given the green light to the PNA to negotiate with Israel.
On the issue
of the three conditions set by Israel
for moving towards a political settlement, Hamas pointed out that the
organisation insists on not putting itself in a position where they are
compromised as Israel
has done with Fatah. This issue is brought on by the fact that for a long time
the Palestinians have been making concessions, but have not been receiving
anything in return. It was pointed out that the conditions imposed by Israel have
never worked. Because of Hamas’ strong stance, it was noted therefore that the United States and Israel resent such confident and
strong leaders that maintain strong positions on the Two-States solution.
On the
condition to renounce violence, Hamas has found the wording to be problematic.
Hamas asked whether resisting against occupation and defending oneself should
be classified as violence. They pointed out also that even the Quartet has
questioned the wording in many of the proposals put forward by Israel and has asked the question as to how come
Israel
always chooses to use words that can be interpreted in multiple ways. For
example, on the issue of Land and Israel’s
withdrawal to the 1967 borders, Israel
has never clarified as to what land it is referring to in its withdrawal
proposals. Hamas is weary of this because they know that according to law one
can be taken to court for not honouring an agreement simply because the lawyers
can make a case based on how they choose to interpret an agreement.
On the issue
of giving recognition to Israel,
Hamas asked as to whether Israel
recognises the Palestinians’ right of return. Moreover, ordinary Palestinians
cannot themselves define the borders of the state of Israel, let alone of the future
Palestinian state. Therefore, the fact that the borders of the state of Israel keep shifting makes it difficult for Palestinians
to recognise Israel
in its final state. It was stated that no one has been able to give guarantees
to Palestinians on the final status issue. Hamas emphasised that even President
Bush of the United States
has failed to give guarantees to Palestinians.
It was
pointed out that Hamas has noticed Israel’s
derailing tactics, which are clear signs that Israel is not really interested in
moving towards a peaceful settlement.
According to Hamas, Israel
is destroying any prospects of reaching an accord on the proposed Two-States
solution. Israel
is doing this by going to lengths to deny Palestinians of their rights.
Some of the
recorded acts of violations by Israel
comprise the following:
- The arbitrary arrests of Palestinians,
including women and children. Statistically, between 10 and 12
Palestinians are arrested every week. There are over 11,000 Palestinian
prisoners in Israeli jails, of whom 700 are women, 400 are children under
the age of 16, and 46 are members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Abdel Aziz Duwaik, who is also a Hamas
official, is among the 46 Members of Parliament that are detained in
Israeli prisons.
- Some of the detainees are tortured and
blackmailed and some are in a critical health condition.
- Many women detainees are separated from
their babies after birth, while others are raising their children in
prison.
- Many women give birth at checkpoints that
are designed to restrict the movement of Palestinians, within, and in and
out of the Occupied
Territories.
- Some are deported to neighbouring countries
and not allowed to come back to their homes neither in Israel nor in the Occupied Territories.
- Extended arbitrary detentions in prisons.
There are many Palestinians in Israeli prisons who have spent over 30
years in detention.
The above
are just some of the violations that are reportedly meted out on the Arab
population in Israel and the
Occupied Territories. Members of the PLC also
pointed to another issue which indicates that Israel is not interested in moving
towards a peaceful settlement. Israel
has recently agreed to a ceasefire with Hamas, set to last over a period of six
months. The wording in the agreement is problematic because the agreement
speaks of Hamas renouncing all violent activities against Israelis, and yet as
it is reported the Israel Defence Force (IDF) has continued with the killing of
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank during
the ceasefire period.
On 24 June
2008 in Nablus,
of two Palestinians were killed, one of them a student, who it is alleged had
his body riddled with over 20 bullets. This caused the Islamic Jihad in Gaza to respond with three rocket attacks into southern Israel. The
rockets fell onto open fields and thus did not injure anyone. But Israel
responded to the rocket attacks by refusing to ease the blockade on the Gaza
Strip, which was a seen by Hamas as violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Also, it was
mentioned that Israel
is not willing to change its position on the right of return for Palestinian
refugees. Israel refuses to
allow the PNA to use East Jerusalem as the
seat of government. In fact Israel
has annexed all of Jerusalem
to create a united capital for a Jewish State. Hamas pointed out that Israel has closed the subject on Jerusalem, including any talk of East or West
Jerusalem. Also, Israel
refuses to speak about the Jordan Valley, where Israel in planning to annex an area
that stretches up to 17 kilometres in width from the border. This means that
one third of Palestinian land has been lost to Israel and has now been rendered
non-negotiable. Israel is
also refusing to negotiate the final status of the Palestine State
based on the Green Line that defines the 1967 borders. This includes most of
the well established settlements in the West Bank.
These and other issues have convinced Hamas, the PLC and other organisations
representing Palestinians that Israel is not interested in a peaceful
settlement.
Hamas
supports the idea of a national dialogue amongst the different Palestinian
factions and it intends to place a focus on the release of the 46 Members of
Parliament that are illegally incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Hamas views the
participation of these Members in the national dialogue as critical to solving
the internal problems facing Palestinians.
Hamas noted
that the process to bring Palestinian factions together to talk about their
differences, especially differences between Hamas and Fatah, is still in the
beginning phase. The situation is so critical such that members of Hamas and
Fatah are engaged in violent conflict that affects both the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas stated it hopes to end such an
occurrence. Hamas therefore expressed hope that South Africa could assist in the
process of uniting Palestinians. But
Hamas expressed concern about the continued preparedness of the United States and Israel to impose a veto on the
holding of talks among Palestinians. Moreover, Hamas does not see why the two
countries should embark upon this action since the national dialogue does not
threaten the Peace Process in any way, and in fact it will enhance it.
6.3 Perspectives from the
Palestinian Legislature
The
delegation met with Members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) who offered their perspectives on the
Israel-Palestine conflict. They included Dr Hassan Kreishe, Deputy Speaker of
the PLC, Dr Qeis Adl Karim of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (DFLP), Ms Khalida Jarrar of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP), Dr Ayman Daraghmeh of Hamas, Mr Bassem Salhi of the PPP, Dr
Najat Al-Astal, Dr Radwan Al-Akhres, who represents Gaza and Mr Walid Assaf,
representing Qalqiliya.
The
legislators stated that the final status talks between the Israel Government
and the PNA were heading nowhere.
The group spoke of moving towards a national dialogue amongst Palestinians,
which would be along the lines of the Yemen Initiative. The group welcomes any
role South Africa
can play in this initiative. The group feels that the current environment
provides for that opportunity since both Hamas and Fatah have called for a
mediator to foster dialogue.
In lieu of
Palestinian Members of Parliament that are in Israeli jails, the group hoped
that Parliaments from around the world would unite and take a stand against
this action.
The group
expressed dismay at the international community, particularly the United States
and European countries that have imposed sanctions against Palestinians. It is
said that unemployment is high amongst Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
It was
pointed out that it is ironic that the United States is supposed play a
critical part in normalising Israeli-Arab relations, but this was not happening
as the United States stood by while Israel undermined the Two-States solution
by further dividing Palestine. It was said Israel
is doing this by building settlements in the Occupied Territories
and around water reserves, which is in contravention of international law. Israel is also
undermining the Peace Process by carrying out continued attacks against
Palestinians that often elicit violent responses. Israel is further undermining the
Peace Process by refusing to grant the right of return to over 6 million
Palestinian refugees. Israel
also refuses to release political prisoners. When the Speaker of Parliament was
arrested he had been calling for a national dialogue amongst Palestinians.
It is deemed
that outside interference in the internal dialogue may ruin chances of
resolving matters between Palestinians. It is envisaged that the PLO should
play a leading role in the internal dialogue, which would culminate in a call
for a fresh round of Palestinian elections, albeit without a military dimension
attached to it.
Israel
has been able to use the actions by Hamas to blockade Gaza Strip. Due to the Gaza
Strip being isolated and Hamas being labelled a terrorist organisation, Israel has
therefore been able to undermine the Hamas government in Gaza Strip by imposing
a siege. In the Gaza Strip children face obstacles when going to school because
normal routes have been closed. People do not have ready access to medical
care. Unemployment is very high. As a result of these conditions negotiations
of a ceasefire between Israel
and Hamas were started and resolved amongst others things that Israel will
lift the blockade. But the PLC believe that the ceasefire agreement is flawed,
as its wording allows Israel to continue with acts of incitement elsewhere in
order to elicit a response from the Gaza Strip that should result in Israel
tightening the blockade.
6.4 Non-violent Resistance
Movements in Israel
and the Occupied Territories
6.4.1 Palestinian NGO Network
(PNGO)
NGOs have
grown in stature in the Palestinian territories as they have come to bridge the
gap in service delivery. They have also assumed prominence in fighting for the
rights of ordinary Palestinians. For the 50 percent of Palestinians that live
under the poverty line of less that US$2 per day, the intervention of NGOs
provides a welcome relief.
The
delegation met with representatives of the PNGO Network, which is a network
made up of Palestinian NGOs that are involved in variety of causes. The central
organ of PNGO collates data and publishes reports on a number of issues
affecting Palestinians.
According to
the PNGO Israel has shown total disregard of all international agreements to
resolve conflict with the Arabs, including the UN resolutions 242 and 338 that
define the road map to peace in the Middle-East. The Second Intifada is seen as
a direct result of Israel’s
refusal to abide by the accords it signed, which paved the way for the
establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.
PNGO pointed out that the situation of the Palestinians has deteriorated so
much that many are questioning whether it is still wise to speak of the
Two-States solution.
According
PNGO one of the tactics used by Israel
to undermine efforts towards reaching a peaceful settlement is the refusal to
recognise Hamas even after it won the 2006 elections by a sweeping majority.
This action undermined the PNA and sewed divisions that persist today. Israel topped
off its actions by ‘propping up’ President Abbas and naming him as a partner in
the peace talks, which it refused to do with Hamas. Moreover, Israel has
continued to deny real authority to the PNA, and the latter has been reduced to
a mere administrative authority. This had resulted in a growing call from
Palestinians for Israel to
formally declare itself as the real authority in the Occupied Territories
in order to make it clear why Palestinians are not doing well in matters of
government.
The PNGO
exchanged views with the delegation and raised a contentious point that Israel views
Palestinians as a ‘demographic problem’ and is dealing with them in that
manner. The PNGO stated that this is informed by the precarious population
balance between the Jews and Palestinians. The total number of Palestinians
living in Israel and the Occupied Territories
would in Unitary State make the Jewish population the
minority. When one adds the six million Palestinian refugees currently living
in the Diaspora, the Jewish population would be totally outnumbered.
It was
indicated that Israel
is putting up efforts to prevent dialogue between the Palestinians and Israeli
citizens that are sympathetic to the cause of their counterparts. To this
effect Israel
has succeeded in creating a hostile environment for Palestinians such that many
Palestinian children only recognise Jews as soldiers. For any dialogue that
takes place between Israelis and the Palestinians, the Israel
government has often claimed the credit for facilitating such.
6.4.2 Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS)
The
delegation met with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) group. Its
point of reference is the UN Conference against Racism and Xenophobia that was
held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. At this
conference South Africa took
a strong position on the Middle East conflict and as a result, Israel walked out of the conference and South Africa
was rebuked by the Western governments and was accused of being anti-Semitic,
an accusation that many other countries disagreed with. Members of the BDS,
some of whom attended the conference were emboldened by the events that took
place and were also inspired by South
Africa’s triumph over apartheid. Thus the
BDS group has sought to follow the route that South African liberation
movements took of calling for sanctions, divestment and boycott against the
apartheid regime. BDS is calling for the same against the State of Israel,
which is seen to be practising apartheid.
The group
noted that NGOs such as the Abraham Fund and its various integration programmes
had not done much for the Palestinians. This is due to a realisation that
organisations such as these were failing to campaign against the occupation and
oppression meted by Jews over the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
They pointed out that projects to get Jewish women to interact with Palestinian
women in the hope that the former would understand the pain of and thus
sympathise with their counterparts have failed.
The group
also pointed to the complicity of the international community, which is accused
of having failed to advance the Palestinian cause. BDS stated that it is
calling for action against Israel
based on principles of human rights.
BDS wants to
place emphasis on uniting the Palestinian voice. They feel South Africa
can assist in the process. The group feels South Africa is well positioned to make
pronouncements against oppressive
policies of Israel,
and also co-sponsor resolutions of the UN. This also means South Africa
could participate more actively in investigating crimes perpetrated by the
Israeli Government against Palestinian civilians.
BDS lauds South Africa’s
position of not renewing contracts currently existing with Israeli companies. However,
the group feels disappointed by the continuing trade, especially in military
equipment, because according to them the Palestinians are weak and cannot match
the military strength of Israel.
Another trade related matter is new contracts that have been allegedly signed
between Transnet and Israeli companies. It was noted that further information
on this would be sought and that BDS should provide any available information
and thereafter the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs would determine how to
deal with the matter.
6.5 The Palestinian
Liberation Organisation (PLO)
In a meeting
with members of the PLO it was mentioned that Israel is propagating another form
of apartheid. The PLO
is calling for international solidarity similar to the South African
experience. International sanctions against Israel
are seen as the best instrument to get Israel to commit to the agreements
that it has signed previously. It is believed that the peace process is showing
no movement and the fortnightly meetings between Prime Minister Olmert and
President Abbas were likened to ‘brainstorming sessions’, because they had not
yielded any tangible solution thus far.
The main
obstacle currently was stated to be Israel’s
occupation of the West Bank. Palestinians
neither have independence nor the right to self-determination. For instance,
when Hamas won the 2006 elections it was put in a position of authority.
However, the events that followed undermined the authority of Hamas. The
organisation’s religious and political positions put it directly at odds with Israel. Hence,
Hamas was denied recognition, even though the elections revealed that it was
the choice of the people. The dismissal of the Hamas Government from the PNA on
June 14, 2007 by President Abbas and its decision to take over the Gaza Strip
administration created difficulties for the Palestinian cause.
The focus
has now shifted to the national dialogue called for by Abu Mazen (President
Mahmoud Abbas as he is otherwise known). Leaders from the region, including the
Arab League have shown support for the initiative.
The PLO
noted that since 1987 in excess of 800,000 Palestinians have been jailed by Israel. The
Palestinian economy has suffered due to Israeli restrictions. The EU has
offered financial assistance to the PNA but not sufficient to address the
problems faced by Palestinians due to the occupation. The PLO argues that in
fact EU support for Israel
has been more effective in imposing its dominion over the Palestinians. Even
universities in the Occupied
Territories are not
functioning as well as they are supposed to due to Israeli political and
military actions.
According to
the PLO peace may be achieved if Israel
was to withdraw from the Occupied
Territories and adhere to
the Arab Peace Initiative. The March 2002 initiative, adopted in Lebanon and sponsored by the then Crown Prince
of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, is essentially a peace plan that outlines the
road map towards achieving peace with Israel. It calls for Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories
and the negotiation of the final status of the State of Palestine based on the
Green Line. It also calls for the return of refugees. Israel’s
acceptance of this initiative, it was mentioned, would assist in normalising
relations between the conflicting parties.
The PLO also
supports the Yemeni Initiative, which is a plan to address conflict between
Hamas and Fatah. The Initiative espouses several critical elements to achieving
peace, including the following:
·
Reuniting the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank
·
The holding of parliamentary
elections
·
Forming a unity government
·
Reconstructing the security and
military infrastructure of the PNA
The PLO
argues that its main area of contention between itself and Hamas is that the
latter wants to reconstruct the agenda of the PLO. In 2005 an agreement was
signed with Hamas laying the foundation for its integration into the PLO.
However, Hamas’ insistence of changing the PLO has contributed to a lack of
progress.
6.6 Central Media
The
delegation met with Ahmmad Abd Al-Rahman, who is the Commissioner of Central
Media, which is a media organisation that is aligned to Fatah, whose offices
are based in Ramallah. Rahman once worked under Chairman Yasser Arafat.
According to Central Media although Israel
is accused of violating the rights of Palestinians, the UN cannot take action
against Israel due to
influence from the United
States. It was noted that Israel is both economically and militarily
powerful due to the support it gets from the United States. Nevertheless, the
reading of the situation suggests that the Two-States solution still applies.
Palestinians
seem to be isolated from all fronts. On the one hand, the Secretary-General of
the UN, Ban Ki-moon, is as argued by Central Media being controlled by Washington, hence he is not in a position to influence
action against Israel’s
abuses. Russia, which holds
veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is also said to be in
support of Israel.
It is said
that the problems between Hamas and the PLO emanate from the choice of
programme to be followed in the Palestinian cause. Hamas wants to change the
constitution of the PLO, but is facing resistance in that regard. To change the
constitution a meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) needs to be
held and the item should form part of the agenda. The PNC is the highest
decision-making body of the PLO. It has however not convened a meeting in over
12 years.
In December
2008 a general conference of the PLO will convene where the Central Committee and
the Revolutionary Council will be elected. Hamas will be allowed to participate
but will not be in a position to influence decisions. On the agenda there will
be the issue of pursuing ‘non-violent’ means to advance the Palestinian cause.
This is brought on by the realisation that violence has failed and also by a
growing surge in the use of the slogan “don’t use guns against us”, which seems
to have yielded some positive results. However, the challenge is of defining
what is meant by ‘non-violence’, as there are Palestinians that believe that
there should be a response to the recurrent violence carried out by the Israeli
Government against Palestinians. But, the non-violent movement seems to be on a
path of growth.
In respect
of the talks between Israel and
the PNA, Central Media has noticed a negotiation pattern where Israel demands
of Palestinians to make concessions before making any tangible offer. Therefore, Palestinians find themselves in a
position where they are giving more but getting less. In this scenario Hamas is
not given space to influence the direction of the talks.
Both Israel and the
PNA are seen to be propagating lies about progress in the negotiations as
nothing concrete has emanated out of them. Also, Prime Minister Olmert neither
has the support nor the legitimacy to reach an agreement with the Palestinians
and the PNA does not possess any leverage over Israel. The talks are therefore
based on a weak foundation, which has led to the need to seek other ways of
engaging the Israeli Government, such as the ‘non-violent movement’.
With regard
to the regional dimension of the conflict it is noted that Syria and Iran
seem to be playing a power game, whereby the Israel-Palestinian conflict is
used to advance their own agendas against the United States.
Central
Media also alluded to a lack of unity of purpose among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
and the Diaspora and the Palestinians that are citizens of Israel.
6.7 Fatah Foreign Relations
Commission (FRC)
There is a
sense that due to the conflict amongst Palestinians time is running out for a
comprehensive solution to the Middle East
conflict. It was noted that Palestinians have become highly anxious and serious
doubts have been cast on the possibility of achieving Palestinian Statehood.
There is
therefore a need to go back to the elections so that people may choose their
leaders, and thereafter look at charting a way forward. However, there is an
acute awareness that Israel
will create obstacles towards any move to unite Palestinians. There is also a
realisation that Israel
is a powerful state and it enjoys the support of the other superpowers.
Fatah is in
need of rebuilding itself so that it can be in a position to strengthen the
liberation movement. The organisation needs to be in touch with the grassroots.
Conferences are being held currently in 21 districts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in preparation for the national conference
later during the year. But the challenge faced by the political leaders is how
to have an inclusive conference that also accommodates the Diaspora. A
successful conference is expected to pave the way for a new programme of the
liberation movement.
Currently,
the main external challenge is the occupation by Israel. The Palestinians are facing
many problems as a society and lack strong institutions to assist with many of
the problems. However, Israel’s
occupation is making the situation worse and there is a realisation that it
will be difficult to achieve a strong independent state. There are also
internal challenges consisting of contests for positions and leadership
portfolios in the PNA.
Infighting
among Palestinians has also been subjected to outside influences and this has
been the case for decades. For instance, the FRC stated that in 1982 Syria supported
a faction of Fatah when the organisation had an internal struggle. The fighting
was serious such that lives were lost as a result. Considered against some of
the recent occurrences, it has become apparent to FRC that outside forces are
always prepared to use the Palestinian cause to advance their own agendas.
FRC pointed
out that although Hamas won the vote for a majority of Parliamentary seats in
2006, the organisation was however not the choice of the grassroots. Fatah lost
the elections because it lost touch with the grassroots. It failed to do
anything about the land grabbing and occupation by Israel. It also failed to keep the
economy alive. Hence, people got frustrated and voted for Hamas.
FRC also
notes that Hamas has committed many mistakes, including boycotting the PNA and
unconstitutionally taking over the Gaza Strip. The FRC expressed concerns that
the unconstitutional government take over was sponsored by Israel. It was
stressed that Hamas must align itself with the PLO programme, which it has
not. However, what remained was that the
ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel should be used to its full
benefit to address the internal problems faced by Palestinians.
It was
pointed out that any assistance from South Africa is welcome in order to
deal with the misunderstandings
between Palestinians. There was an invitation from the Arab League that had
been awaited in order to discuss issues of holding a national dialogue. Again
it was stressed that South
Africa is welcome to participate in the
discussions with the Arab League.
6.8 Perspectives on the
Failure of the Two-States Solution
Dr Mustafa
Barghouthi, an MP, treated the delegation to a compelling argument on the
failure of the Two-States solution. He made a presentation called
“Consolidating Apartheid: Current facts on the ground.” The presentation posed
a critical question not only on the possibility of achieving Palestinian
Statehood, but also on the future of the Palestinians in general.
Dr
Barghouthi noted that since the UN partition plan of 1947, Palestinians have
continued to lose more land to Israel.
From originally being given 45 percent of historic Palestine, Palestinians lost a further 20
percent after the 1967 war. He alluded to the Alon Plan of 1967, which details how Israel
is to annex the whole of Palestine,
in the name of Zionism.
He noted
that security is used as a pretext to suppress the Palestinian struggle and the
people’s dream of Statehood. He pointed to the checkpoints and many other
obstacles that had grown to make life difficult for Palestinians.
Dr
Barghouthi argued that the Annapolis Road Map does not form the basis for a
comprehensive move towards peace. He noted that Israel has thus far killed 485
people since the Annapolis Conference. He pointed that out that currently the
ratio of killings when comparing Israel
and Palestinian militants is 45 to 1, where Israel is responsible for the
bigger number. Israel
has also jailed 46 Members of Parliament.
6.9 Perspectives from Hebron
In a meeting
with the Governor of Hebron it was pointed out that 400 settlers were now
living in Hebron.
The settlers have seized and confiscated houses, schools, mosques and shops
belonging to Palestinians for their own personal use. Life has become very
difficult as a result. In the Old
City some roads cannot be
used by Palestinians. In emergency situations people cannot make it to
hospitals in time as a result of the blockades.
It was noted
that Hebron, which has a population of 700,000
generates 50 percent of the GDP of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip. It is therefore the economic heartbeat of the Palestinians.
However, the economy is adversely affected by the smuggling of goods into Hebron by Jewish
settlers. There are plans to build an industrial area in Hebron
but Israel
is creating various sorts of obstacles to frustrate the project. By this, Israel is
violating an agreement under the Oslo Accords. The industrial hub would create
up to 10,000 jobs for Hebron
citizens.
6.10 Perspectives from the Gaza Strip
The meetings
in the Gaza Strip were held with diverse groups from UN bodies, to human rights
activists, to groups representing Palestinian political organisations including
Fatah and Hamas.
6.11 UNRWA and The struggle to
develop the Palestinian education system in the Gaza Strip
In a meeting
with Gaza Strip Chapter of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) it was noted that there was a 50-60 percent failure
rate of Palestinians pupils in preparatory classes in Gaza.
This is due to the low level of literacy and numeracy amongst pupils. UNRWA had
thus launched an outreach campaign to parents in order to sensitise them of the
issues concerning their children and schooling matters. It also planned to have
new schools built. Life for the children
of Gaza has
drastically changed over the course of the last 2 to 3 years. Many children do
not get to experience life outside of Gaza.
Fear, caused by violence has engulfed their lives.
The level of
poverty in Gaza
has increased over the years. Currently, 80 percent of the population is living
in poverty. There are programmes to assist the people of Gaza. There are job creation services, which
are meant to meet the Palestinian demand for jobs and not aid. UNRWA provides
primary health care services, but is facing huge human resource constraints.
The Nablus Chapter of UNRWA had reported facing serious shortage of doctors,
where between two to three doctors had to see between 500 and 600 people on a
daily basis. The
Gaza Chapter of UNRWA also provides dietary and calorie checking services.
There are emergency cash services to provide relief for cash strapped families.
This service benefits between 25,000 and 95,000 people.
Up to 70
percent of the Gaza
population is made up of Palestinian refugees. It was pointed out that there
are forces that do not want stability to reign on the Gaza Strip. The conflict
between the PNA (backed up by Fatah) and Hamas had also contributed to the
difficult situation for the community of the Gaza Strip. Organisations such as
UNRWA were therefore caught in the middle of the conflict. This has derailed
much of the organisation’s programmes.
For
instance, educational programmes have been put under strain because of
political violence. Meanwhile, the authorities have put high standards on
education, which cannot be met under the current environment. The delegation
was informed that Palestinians are by tradition people that have put a high
premium on education and have thus produced many talented individuals with good
credentials. UNRWA does document
atrocities that are committed in the Gaza Strip, but its mandate prevents it
from holding those responsible to account. It does however forward the
information to relevant UN bodies.
6.12 Perspectives from the Prime
Minister’s Office
Hamas won
the 2006 election and became tenth government of the PNA. Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh
was appointed to the position of Prime Minister and technically remains the
head of Government although his successor Dr Salam Fayyad was appointed by the
President in June 2007, an appointment that remains to be confirmed by the
legislature. Parliament has been
rendered dysfunctional because 46 Members of Parliament remain in Israeli
prisons.
The
following is an account of the issues from the Prime Minister’s office.
According to
the Prime Minister’s Office Hamas, when it joined Government it sought to
govern by using principles of democracy, but was however caught by surprise as
events unfolded. Hamas
found itself besieged from all fronts. The international community failed to
recognise the Hamas government. The United States led a campaign to
isolate the Palestinian government under Hamas. Israel
escalated assaults against Palestinians in the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. These actions revealed to Hamas that the world was not
prepared to respect what it was trying to build in the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip, which is a strong democratic state.
It was noted
that over 197 people from the Gaza Strip had been killed by Israeli soldiers in
2008. Gaza is under a blockade, and all five of
the border crossings in and out of Gaza
have been closed.
According to
the Prime Minister’s Office Hamas never anticipated that there would be so much
division among the Palestinians. Apparently there were individuals with direct
control of military forces under the PNA that were prepared to ruin plans for
Hamas to govern effectively. Hamas had received reports from a variety of
sources that there were forces that wanted to divide Palestinians.
The Office noted
however that it believed that national dialogue and a process of reconciliation
could assist in uniting the Palestinians.
It expressed hope that South
Africa would assist in this process. It was
indicated that there is a 10-point document available that indicates issues
that need to be resolved among Palestinians.
In terms of
the ceasefire facilitated by Egypt
with Israel,
it was pointed out that the agreement was based on consultation and consensus,
as is traditionally the case in dealing with Palestinian matters. However, it
had immediately become clear that Israel was prepared to undertake
actions to undermine the agreement. For instance, the killing of two
Palestinian students in Nablus,
a day before the delegation met with The Prime Minister, was one indication of
Israeli efforts to undermine the ceasefire agreement. It was noted that Israel knew that any act of provocation would
incite a response from Gaza.
This did indeed occur, as one of the students killed was a member of the
Islamic Jihad. A branch of this organisation that operates from the Gaza Strip
responded by launching 3 rockets into parts of Sderot, which is located in the
southern parts of Israel.
The Government of Israel responded by immediately intensifying the blockade on
the Gaza Strip. This was viewed as a violation of the ceasefire agreement,
because the agreement only affected Hamas and the Government of Israel. It was
argued that Israel should
have therefore taken into account that the rockets were not launched by Hamas
and that the Islamic Jihad was responding to the attacks in Nablus. Hamas stressed its commitment to the
ceasefire agreement. It was pointed out that Hamas subsequently warned the
Islamic Jihad of the dangers of its actions and the latter thus promised to
commit itself to peace. The challenge had then emanated from another
Palestinian militant faction, the Al-Aqsa Brigades, who have yet to make
commitments to adhering to the terms of the calmness agreement. It was noted
that there was hope that South Africa would assist in urging the Israeli Government to respect the terms of the
agreement and to stop acts of aggression against Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories.
It was
pointed out that Israel
is involved in many acts to undermine the Peace Process. For instance, the
excavations being conducted under the Al-Aqsa Mosque endangered the foundations
of the Mosque, considered to be one of the holiest sites for Muslims. The
continued building of settlements, separation walls and the erection of
checkpoints were mentioned as other Israeli actions that undermine the Peace
Process.
In terms of
the position of Hamas on the internal conflict among Palestinians, it was noted
that the former is prepared to be integrated into the PLO. However, the
Palestinian National Council (PNC), the highest decision-making body of the
PLO, had failed to convene a meeting in over 15 years. Also, the executive
committee is not truly representative, as there are several Palestinian
factions, such as the Islamic Jihad and the National Initiative that are not
represented in it. It was pointed out that Hamas wants to see the PLO being
rebuilt based on principles of democracy. The 2005 Cairo agreement formed the basis for the
rebuilding of the PLO. Hamas then awaited an invitation from President Mahmoud
Abbas to participate in the national dialogue. According the Prime Minister
Hamas is also prepared to go back to the Mecca Agreement
based on an agreement with the President of the PNA. Hamas wanted to put itself
in a position where it would be clear as to who is responsible for violations
between itself and Israel.
6.13 Al Ahla and Fatah
In a meeting
with Al Ahla, who is the security chief of the PLO and other members of Fatah
in Gaza it was
noted that the territory had become a prison.
An account of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was
given with specific references to the ‘Nakba’, of which the current year would
mark the 60th anniversary of the event. Therefore while on the one
hand Israelis celebrated 60 years of Israeli Statehood, the Palestinians on the
other hand commemorated the Nakba. To
the Palestinians the Nakba marks a turn of events where Israel formally embarked on a project to
colonise Palestine,
and as a result, people were massacred, while others were driven off their
land. According to the Olso Accords, the state of Palestine
was due to be in existence by 1999, but Israel has prevented this from
happening.
It was
argued that the image of Palestinians has been damaged by what is referred to
as the Hamas ‘coup’. Fatah contends that Hamas only wanted dialogue with Fatah,
and was prepared to leave out the rest of the Palestinian factions. Fatah was
however interested in a comprehensive dialogue. It was noted that President
Mahmoud Abbas had called for a truce and for calmness, and after a period of a
month Israel
would have to open the border crossings. A safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza Strip was also called for. It was
noted however that Hamas was not interested in the efforts that Fatah had made
and instead wanted to continue the resistance. It is the view of Fatah
therefore that Hamas is “only interested in making gains for Israel.” As a
result of activities on the ground, the truce was therefore facing a threat of
credibility.
According to
Al Ahla there is an inherent clash between the Israeli vision and Hamas’ vision
for the Middle East. Israel on the
one hand wants to establish an exclusively Jewish state. On the other hand,
Hamas wants to build an Islamic state. Al Ahla contends that Fatah wants a
state where Israelis and Palestinians can live together under a secular
government. Al Ahla noted that the
‘coup’ by Hamas had made it difficult to reconcile Palestinians. Nevertheless,
Fatah is still determined to make the Two-States solution a reality based on
the vision espoused by the Yemeni Initiative.
Al Ahla
noted that Palestinians had hoped that the Arab League could act as a mediator
but there was a fear of interference. The Arab world could contribute however,
by preparing the ground for negotiations and for a process of national
reconciliation. The Palestinians would then proceed with the process. But,
there are fears of conspiratorial elements, as has been shown in the past,
going back to the Nakba. During that period some of the Arab nations that
supported the Palestinians in the 1948 war suddenly turned around and colluded
with Israel’s
allies. It is due to this eventuality, the argument goes, that the 1948 war was
lost to Israel.
One of the results of the war was the displacement of tens of thousands of
Palestinians.
The Arab
world renewed its support for the Palestinians in the 1960s when they supported
the formation of the PLO. The organisation was however subjected to external
interference when countries such as Syria were embroiled in a struggle
to control the PLO, as some of the members were exiled there. The turn of
events had led to the Battle of Independence. Control of the PLO only returned
to Palestinians in the 1990s, and one measure of its strength was the signing
of the Oslo Accords.
It was
pointed out that Hamas has let Arab nations interfere in the affairs of the
Palestinians, by among other things, putting the matters of Palestinians in the
hands of Syria and Iran. It was
contended also that Hamas reversed the gains made for Palestinians by launching
a coup in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Hamas refuses to recognise the PLO in its
current state. It is thus the imperative of the Arab world to foster dialogue
between Palestinians.
6.14 Perspectives from the
Palestinian Legislative Council in Gaza
Dr Baher
representing the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in Gaza noted that they were concerned about the
detention of Palestinian leaders by Israeli authorities. The detention of 46
members of the PLC has weakened the institution. There was anger however that
the international community had turned its back on Palestinians by for instance
vacating their offices in Gaza.
But, the point was made that the South African representative office is still
functioning well in the Gaza Strip. A member of the PLC stated that they were
willing to accept any offer of assistance
from South Africa. One of the ways that
were suggested for South Africa
to assist was by intensifying its
visits to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in
order to raise the international profile of the situation in these territories
and therefore break the siege.
The
divisions among Palestinians had also crept into the PLC. The detention of
members of the PLC had exacerbated the situation. There were differences of
opinions also regarding the truce signed with Israel. Some wanted the truce in
order to expose Israel
as the aggressor. But, some believed the situation for the Palestinians would
not change. A case in point is the killing of a 16 year old Palestinian boy by
Israeli soldiers on June 28, 2008, which is the period of the ceasefire
agreement and coincided with the visit of the delegation to the region. Israeli
soldiers are said to be responsible for the killing of women and children. This
is the reason why others preferred to continue with the struggle as they didn’t
trust the motives of the Israeli Government.
The
international community was noted as being silent on the detention of members
of the PLC including the Speaker of Parliament. Also the United States
was accused of making attempts to stop the process of reconciliation among
Palestinians. It was said the United States
supported Israel
in making laws and regulations for Palestinians even though the latter had a
legitimate government.
6.15 Perspectives of Non-Governmental
Organisations in the Gaza
Strip
In a meeting
with representatives of the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) based in Gaza, including Jaber,
human rights defender, it was pointed out again that Israeli occupation is the main problem for
Palestinians. The
occupation had caused massive suffering. The international community had been
urged to impose sanctions against Israel, but it has been reluctant
to do so. The international community, it was stated, bases its action on the
argument that Palestinians would suffer more as a result. This argument was
however dismissed as an excuse as the international community continued to
support Israel
in various ways.
The
exercising of authority over the Gaza Strip by Hamas was welcomed, as this tiny
territory had been suffering from neglect for decades. Shortly after winning
the 2006 elections, Hamas faced sanctions led by the Unites States
and its allies.
In spite of
the intentions of Hamas, it was noted however, that along with Fatah both
organisations were responsible for human rights violations. There was a need
therefore to address such violations in their own context and separate the
matter from the issue of the Israeli blockade and occupation.
PNGO had
made proposals to both Hamas and Fatah on the national dialogue and thus
proposed that other Palestinians factions should be included. But, a challenge
that had emanated was that some factions had their own agendas. As a way of
addressing this challenge PNGO had embarked on a mobilisation campaign among ordinary
Palestinians to show that people are interested in the national dialogue.
The blockade
caused much suffering, especially for women and children. Many had died, while
others continued to suffer from illnesses and could not access medical care as
they were not allowed to the cross the check points into Israel where
they could access medical care for critical conditions. The ill are treated in
the Gaza Strip but the siege has made it difficult to source equipment and
medicine.
Israel
is also accused of blocking the delivery of books and other education materials
to the Gaza Strip. This, it was noted, was meant to destroy hope among
Palestinians. It was mentioned that Israel had also embarked on a
national survey to show that people are not interested in the truce.
Other human
rights abuses by Israel
included the following:
- Killings of Palestinians and humiliations
conducted at checkpoints.
- Farmers being forced off their land.
- Thousands of firms being forced to close.
- Pollution of the water
- The destruction of olive trees belonging to
Palestinians
- The disconnection to essential
infrastructure, including sanitation pipes and roads.
Israel
is therefore perceived to be determined to undermine all previous peace
agreements. Hence, sanctions against Israel
are seen as a crucial tool in forcing Israel to back down from its acts
of violations.
One of the
weaknesses of the Oslo Accords, as it was pointed out, was the neglecting of
human rights issues. The Accords was also silent on the issue of detainees and
political prisoners.
6.16 Palestinian Intellectuals
in the Gaza
Strip
In a meeting
with the House of Wisdom, it was pointed out that efforts by the US and the EU
to veto the Palestinian national dialogue were noted with regret.
The inability of President Mahmoud Abbas to visit the Gaza Strip was also seen
as a contributory factor to the problems facing the territory.
The
prevailing situation had made it clear that boycotts, sanctions and divestments
against Israel
had become the most obvious solution to the problems faced by Palestinians. It
was noted that Israel
is not prepared to make any concessions and that it will not abide by its
obligations under the previous agreements. Therefore, House of Wisdom is
calling for assistance from the international community in this regard.
The
Two-States solution is no longer seen as valid. The only option left is to
negotiate a united, secular and
democratic state. It was mentioned that Hamas, upon taking the reigns of the
PNA, was prepared to make concessions and negotiate Palestinian Statehood based
on the 1967 borders, but the organisation faced a major challenge when it was
labelled as a terrorist organisation by Israel and the West.
It was
pointed out that South Africa
can assist with construction efforts in order to rebuild schools, universities
and other national institutions in the Occupied Territories.
This would enable the national authorities to govern properly and set aside
some of the current obstacles to effective government. According to the House
of Wisdom, it is clear that Israel
intends to build an exclusive Jewish state in Israel
and the Occupied Territories and therefore the only
option remaining is for Palestinians to start thinking about their future.
7. Perspectives from the
Diaspora
This section
covers meetings held with Palestinians living in the Diaspora, including exiled
representatives of Palestinian political organisations. Other meetings were
held with representatives of the Government of Syria and its Parliament. The
delegation also met with UN bodies that are responsible for providing
humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees and also met with
Hizbollah. Hizbollah stated that it
supports the Palestinian cause mainly because Palestinians and the Lebanese
share one common enemy, that is, Israel’s Zionist Project. It was pointed out that Zionism
affects most parts of the Middle East region.
7.1 Perspectives from the
Syrian Government
7.1.1 Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Dr Faysal
Mekdad, Syria’s
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs noted that the regional situation has grown to
be highly complicated.
There are approximately 500,000 Palestinians refugees living in Syria,
including those that had moved there after the 1948 Israel-Arab war. Dr Faysal
mentioned that many of the refugees yearned to go back to their homes in Israel and Palestine.
He noted that some felt so strong about the issue that they had kept keys to
their houses in the hope of one day going back home.
The
international community has however ignored the rights of Palestinians in the
Diaspora but has instead chosen to support Israel, Dr Faysal stressed. He
noted that since 1973, the United States
in particular had been instrumental in ensuring that Arab states do not launch
another war against Israel
and this had secured the latter against the long standing claims from its
adversaries. Egypt was noted
as a case in point, as it had signed the Camp David agreement, thus forming a
pact with Israel,
and hence it broke ranks with rest of the Arab world. Also, Kuwait was mentioned as it benefited from
protection by the United
States. It was stated that although Arab to
Arab occupation was viewed as undesirable, the relationship formed with the United States following the ousting of Iraq from Kuwait
in the 1990s, led to a formation of a pact with the United
States, which has neutralised Kuwait’s position on the
Palestinian cause.
Dr Faysal
alluded to a pattern of deception orchestrated by Israel
and its allies, where Arab states were co-opted to cooperate with Israel, by being promised that Israel would honour their claims, but afterwards
Israel’s
priorities would suddenly change once it had secured its immediate interests.
Meanwhile Israel continued
to put more pressure on Palestinians to make even greater concessions, and at
the same time Israel
ignores the previous agreements signed with the Palestinians. It was pointed
out that in fact Israel used those agreements to divide Palestinians by wording
them is such a way that some amongst the Palestinians would not agree with the
content and thus create divisions over the acceptance of the agreements. The
Oslo Accords were stated as one example.
The Mecca
Agreement also failed to foster unity amongst Palestinians. The religious
significance of the venue for the talks seems not to have had the desired
effect, that of fostering unity. Saudi Arabia
has failed to follow up on the implementation of the agreement and it is
believed that because of the relationship with the United
States, Saudi
Arabia has found itself hamstrung. President
Assad of the Arab League has also made efforts to unite Palestinians but, the Summit to which Arab Leaders were called was jeopardised
by the United States’
interference, which gave instructions to some of the leaders, including President
Abbas not to attend. The summit became a success in spite of America’s
efforts and President Abbas also managed to attend. One of the most critical
resolutions that came out of the summit was an agreement to unite Palestinians
and rebuild the liberation movement. Syria registered its support for
this move.
The
challenges faced by Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories were discussed, but
significantly a connection was made between the Middle East conflict and the
events in Iraq.
It was pointed out that Iraq,
during Saddam Hussein’s reign, had supported the Palestinian cause. The
powerful position it held in the region was of great concern to the United States
and its allies. Hence, the Unites States sought to reorganise the balance of
power in the Middle East so that Israel may benefit from not having
to worry about a powerful Iraqi state threatening its interests and those of
its allies in the region. While Iraq
has been embroiled in civil war in recent times, fanned by what is referred to
as conspiratorial efforts of the United States, the country was now
moving towards national reconciliation.
As peace would make Iraq a
powerful country again in the Middle East region, Dr Faysal suggested that the United States had therefore stepped in to ensure
that it signs an agreement with the current administration that would ensure
the United States
interests in the region are safeguarded.
The United
States has been pressurising Syria to assist with the refugees trapped at the
border shared with Iraq, but has not itself provided material means to assist
the refugees. Syria, which
faces its own internal problems, has been careful about hosting additional
refugees without any international assistance, especially from the United States, which is seen as the creator of
the humanitarian crisis that currently persists in the Middle
East. Syria was
already hosting 1.5 million refugees from Iraq. It therefore became clear
that the United States
intended to export its problems to Syria
and cause instability as it had done in Iraq. Ultimately, this would lead
to the reorganisation of balance of forces in the Middle
East. This it was argued would isolate Iran,
seen as the biggest challenge currently facing Israel.
Dr Faysal
pointed out that Israel
engaged in a series of acts of aggression against Syria, including bombing one of the
country’s military facilities on September 6 2007 on account of suspected
nuclear activity. Syria,
noting that Israel
was seeking to resuscitate the war between the two countries decided not to
retaliate. Dr Faysal’s contention was that a war with Israel would have probably been followed by an
invasion by the United States,
similar to the Iraq
situation. Thus, it is suspected that any occupation of Syria would lead to other internal problems that
would severely weaken Syria
as a State. Therefore, Syria
has decided instead to open its doors to the International Atomic Agency in
order to investigate as to whether Syria does indeed have nuclear
capability or not. Dr Faysal stated that Syria
has committed itself to the peaceful resolution of its conflict with Israel, that involving the return of occupied
Golan Heights, which were seized by Israel at the end of the 1967 war.
However, Dr Faysal added, Syria
does not want its negotiations with Israel to undermine the Palestinian
track of negotiations. Syria
noted however that further attacks by Israel
and its allies within the country would be viewed in a serious light, as they
would also threaten the ongoing talks over the Golan
Heights.
Syria
is sending the message to President Abbas and the PNA to be tougher in the
negotiations with Israel.
Syria
wants to urge Palestinians to move towards national unity, but that they should
not forget that there are other forms of resistance. Dr Faysal noted however
that it had become clear that Palestinians had become weary of outside
interference.
7.1.2 Ministry of Expatriates
In a meeting
with Dr Bouthania Shaaban, Syria’s Minister of Expatriates, it was noted
that the United States’
involvement in Middle Eastern politics has complicated the situation further.
In fact it was pointed out that the United States
is responsible for much of the violence that is taking place in the Middle East.
The United States is accused
of encouraging sectarian differences in Iraq, as it presses on with the
‘colonisation’ agenda. It was pointed out that 3 million people had been
widowed in Iraq since the
invasion by the United
States. Also, the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbollah in southern Lebanon had led to 500,000 people fleeing to Syria.
It was
pointed out that there is an element of Western Supremacy over Arab culture,
which fuels racist attitudes against Arabs. This is symbolised by the denial of
rights of Palestinians to access their own literature.
Dr Shaaban pointed to the deaths of 300 elite Iraqi academics and
professionals, who it is suspected have been systematically killed since the
beginning of the invasion. Dr Shaaban noted however that there is no strong
political movement to oppose the Western Supremacy agenda in the Middle East.
The United States is also accused of not willing to
take responsibility for the damage caused by the Iraq war. For example, while the United States urged Syria
to accept over 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, the United
States only agreed to have 6000 refugees repatriated to
the United States.
Also the United States has
not offered financial assistance for refugees residing in Syria.
Dr Bouthania
pointed out also that Palestinian Members of Parliament endured torture in
Israeli prisons and are not even allowed to access medical care. Also, many
incarcerated women gave birth in prison, while Palestinian children were
killed.
7.2 Notes on the plight of
refugees in Syria
Although
refugees have been present in Syria
for decades, a shift in the international focus on the issue of refugees in
this country only began in 2006.
Until October 2007 there were no strict regulations on the acceptance of
refugees. In previous years refugees could resume new lives in Syria and be
integrated within society. However, following the realisation of the impact on
the economy since the advent of the Iraq
invasion by the Allied Forces, Syria
decided to put regulatory measures in place.
The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Syria has been assisting with
refugees and of late has placed its focus squarely on Iraqi refugees. It has
given assistance to education and health programmes and also provided emergency
cash relief assistance. However, there was a noticeable deterioration in the situation
of refugees. Women and children were found to be more vulnerable under the
prevailing circumstances. The Syria Chapter of UNRWA indicated that it has
intentions of driving current relief programmes to making them more about
development and self-sustenance.
Palestinian
refugees were reported to be receiving micro-finance assistance, unlike Iraqi
refugees who do note receive assistance. However, some of the Iraqi refugees
are also Palestinians. These are Palestinians that had settled in Iraq in the
aftermath of the 1948 Israel-Arab war. Some even joined the army in Iraq.
Palestinian
refugees have been integrated into life in Syria. They have been accorded
rights enjoyed by other citizens, but do not have citizenship.
Some even go for military service in the Syrian army. Three-quarters of
Palestinian refugees in Syria
live in Damascus,
while the rest live in the Yanuk camp, which is not a camp in the true sense of
the word, but a built up area, where the refugees have built their lives.
Government has made special provisions for those refugees that still want to
return to their place of origin. But, the recent surge of refugees from Iraq, many of whom are Palestinians that had
taken refuge in Iraq, has
created a competition for resources in Syria. This has thus led to the
growth of the grey market, where refugees that are not allowed to be employed
in Syria
part-take in income generating activities that form part of the informal
economy.
HIV and AIDS
were reported to be high among the poor in Syria, especially refugees.
The age group that is affected the most is that of young people between the
ages of 20 and 39. Syria
does not have a national strategy on HIV and AIDS. Poverty was mentioned as a
high-risk factor in the spread of HIV and AIDS. Unemployment, crime and the use
of drugs are high among the Palestinian youth in Syria.
There are
780 Palestinian refugees trapped at the border between Iraq and Syria.
Their camp is small and is not allowed to expand. Movement is strictly
restricted and there are no facilities for abused women and children.
These are the Palestinian refugees that are caught up in the middle of the
political fracas between Iraq,
Syria, Israel and the
Palestinian National Authority.
The
Palestinians in Hul Hul, an area in Syria
along the border with Iraq,
have found themselves in positions where they had to purchase fraudulent
passports in order to make it easier to travel between Syria and Iraq.
It was noted
that the situation of the 780 Palestinian refugees that are trapped along the
border with Iraq
is critical. Their situation was deteriorating day by day, but in the meantime,
seemingly the key players in the Middle Eastern politics were only interested
in gaining the advantage over their adversaries.
However, the
Palestinians were described as not mere bystanders, being caught in the middle
of the politics, but as active participants in the complex regional politics.
For instance, the civil war in Iraq
also involves Palestinians. It was noted that a majority of Palestinians are
Sunni Muslims.
Therefore, some of them have participated in the conflict between Sunni and
Shiite Muslims in Iraq.
However, an interesting development is that some of those that had participated
in the fighting had not really been persuaded by Martyrdom, nor ideology, but
mainly by economic circumstances.
Engaging in the fight assists in claiming identity and status in Iraq.
An agreement
has been signed between the PLO and Sudan
that provides for 2000 Palestinian refugees from Iraq
to be repatriated to Khartoum.
However, the Sudanese Government has said that it will not build houses for the
refugees, but will instead lobby for funding on their behalf.
This scenario is informed by the fact that Palestinians do not feel safe to
return to Iraq
under the obtaining circumstances.
The UN has
found it difficult to deal with the issue of refugees due to the politics that
are involved and the various UN missions have also found themselves in a
position where they need to maintain political correctness, even though they
possessed information, which they could use for purposes of advocacy.
7.4 Palestinian Liberation
Organisation (PLO) in Syria
Talks
between Israel and the PNA
are under threat because of the conditionalities set by Israel and its allies, it was argued by Dr Batal
of the PLO based in Syria. For instance, the United States is putting pressure
on President Abbas not to enter into a national dialogue with Hamas. Thus far,
the interference has also contributed to non-implementation of the 2005 Cairo
Agreement that provides for talks between Palestinian political organisations.
According to
Dr Batal, President Abbas finds himself in a difficult position where his
ability to negotiate a political settlement with Israel is called into question. His
inability to consult widely has put a dent into his legitimacy. Moreover, he is
under pressure by the United
States. Also, it seems Israel is not
likely to make any concessions as any agreement with the PNA will have to go to
a Jewish national referendum, whose results are not expected to yield a
positive outcome for the Palestinians.
Since Annapolis no positive
outcome had been realised Dr Batal asserted. The conference thus yielded
nothing for the Palestinians. The Quartet has slowed down in its efforts to
broker a solution of the Middle East conflict.
Palestinians do not enjoy the support from influential members of the
international community and even the Arab world has gone quiet since the Yemeni
Initiative.
Dr Batal
pointed out that the Palestinian cause can be subdivided into three threads,
namely: the National; Democratic; and Islamic threads. On the one hand the
democrats are in a weak position. They are divided amongst themselves and no
longer enjoy international support from the most influential countries,
especially since the Soviet Union
disintegrated. The nationals are accused of having the wrong attitude.
Islamists are in crisis because they are not recognised by the most critical
players (Israel
and the West). The Diaspora is in disarray because the PLO is not available to
provide leadership.
What is left
therefore is a process where the different factions should move towards a
leadership collective and this is only possible through holding talks. However,
the challenge emanated from criticisms of President Abbas who is said to be
ignoring other Palestinian factions. It was expressed that South Africa is welcomed to assist by inviting
the various parties to a dialogue and to
act as a moderator, just as the
recent events in Lebanon
had just shown, where some measure of national unity has been achieved through
dialogue.
7.5 Perspectives from
Palestinian Militant Groups in the Diaspora
In a meeting
with the Palestinian Popular Struggle (PPS), The Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP) and the Islamic Jihad it was emphasised that what was
happening in the Occupied
Territories can simply be
described as acts of apartheid and colonialism.
It was pointed out that United
States is practicing deception and is using
pressure to further complicate the situation there. In the meantime, Israel refuses
to normalise its relations with its Arab neighbours.
Due to
Israeli deception, it was emphasised, the current negotiations actually
betrayed the Palestinians, as no positive outcome was expected. Fatah enjoyed
the position of leading both the negotiations and the PNA because it benefited
from financial assistance from its international allies. The PFLP pointed out
that President Abbas did not enjoy the same level of legitimacy as Arafat when
he negotiated the Olso Accords. Arafat was negotiating with a clear mandate
from the PLO, whereas currently the PLO did not play a significant role, even
though Fatah is the de facto leader
of the liberation movement. Abbas was characterised as a product of Oslo, and it was stated
that due to his inability to consult widely he had failed to take into account
the views of Palestinian refugees.
The PLO
leadership is a contested matter, because the Palestinian National Council
(PLC) is not considered to be a constitutional body. The PLC had failed to
convene a meeting in years. Therefore, the question posed was to whom is the
PLC accountable when it has failed to hold meetings in more than a decade.
Due to the
violations that had been perpetrated by the Israeli Government against
Palestinians over the decades it was pointed out by Islamic Jihad that peace
would not prevail until the situation for the Palestinians was normalised. It
was pointed out by Islamic Jihad that Zionism thrives on violence and this
therefore negated any chance for peace in the region. This was opposed to the
position of many Palestinians including the militant factions who are prepared
to live side by side with the Jews as human beings. The determination to roll
back Zionism on the part of Islamic Jihad is therefore very high.
The
divisions among Palestinians had a negative impact on the Palestinian cause.
However, interference by outsiders was making the situation worse. The
international community had shown favour towards Israel. Israel
has even used the various international initiatives to negotiate peace to its
advantage in a programme of deception that is meant to fool the world that Israel is
committed to peace, while the situation on the ground proved otherwise.
However, the
groups asserted that the time to move towards national unity and advance the
Palestinian cause had come. But, outside forces were seeking to create
obstacles and were manipulating the divisions to stop Palestinians from talking
amongst themselves. The division is now causing a major embarrassment to the
Palestinians. Nevertheless, the message was relayed that support from South Africa
would be welcomed in a move to foster national unity.
Dr Khaled
Abdul Majit of the PPS noted that Palestinians had entered into another phase
of national liberation. Previous agreements with Israel had not been honoured, but
instead the situation for the Palestinians was deteriorating further. Israel is not
prepared to offer anything more than 10.5 percent of the occupied land to the
PNA. Also, Olmert has told Abbas that Israel
would annex East Jerusalem and unite it with West Jerusalem in order to create
one unified capital of the state of Israel.
The PNA is
being used for the oppression of the Palestinians.
The fight for control of the PNA was seen not to be helping matters. The
‘parochialism’ displayed by Fatah and Hamas is seen as not assisting in
addressing the core issues.
However the take over of the Gaza Strip by Hamas was seen as not deserving of
condemnation because the territory had been neglected by previous governments.
Dr Jabash of the PFLP pointed to the failure to making serious inroads in the
Palestinian cause, which he stated has led to questions as to whether the flaws
emanated from the nature of the cause itself or the people that are leading it.
Hope was
expressed that President Abbas’ visit to Syria would assist in drawing up a
programme for the national dialogue. Syria as the chair of the Arab
League was expected to lead the efforts. Additional support was expected from Yemen and Qatar. But, Dr Majit pointed out,
that outside interference could threaten the national dialogue.
It is the
view of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) that
national dialogue should be held on Palestinian soil initially and thereafter
be allowed to continue in other parts of the Arab world. There are those that
argue that it should be held in Cairo, while
others supported by Syria
reject this proposal. The unity agreement, argues the DFLP, should bear the
signatures of the most critical players, including DFLP, PFLP, Fatah and Hamas.
Interference from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia was stated as being
undesirable.
The DFLP
motivated that national unity talks should be based on the principle of a ‘minimum
consensus’. This means that parties to the talks should seek to agree on the
most fundamental issues and leave the details to be discussed at a later date.
The DFLP pointed to Hamas’ preconditions for holding the national dialogue,
which in its view could hinder progress. Hamas, which is seen as a late entrant
to the Palestinian struggle (as it only emerged in 1988) was seen as seeking to
assert itself among liberation movements that had been in existence long before
it came into being. For instance, the DFLP, PFLP and Fatah were picked out as
having had a long history of leading the Palestinian cause.
These organisations were said to enjoy the recognition of a majority of
Palestinians, including those living in the Diaspora.
But the DFLP
contends that the Diaspora is not truly represented in the PLC. It was
therefore imperative that elections be held with all the political factions
represented, including members of the Diaspora, to ensure that the PLC truly
represents Palestinians from all quarters.
There is
fear that the Sunni and Shiite conflict that is raging in Iraq could
spread to the rest of the region. Palestinians will be affected by this because
the majority are Sunni Muslims. The situation is exacerbated by regional power
interests that want to exploit the Palestinian cause to their own benefit.
It was noted
that there was a tendency to confuse temporary solutions to the final
settlement. PFLP therefore vowed to continue to fight the ‘racism’,
‘colonialism’ and ‘expansionist’ nature of the Israeli state. The determination
to fight was amplified by the realisation that the Unites States
and its allies were not prepared to hear other perspectives from the
Palestinian side, but instead chose to arbitrarily label such groups as
‘terrorist.’ Moreover, the Palestinian cause is linked to other regional
issues. The resistance movement, it was asserted, would therefore seek to press
for a comprehensive regional solution to the problems facing Palestinians,
based on the principle of justice.
7.6 Hizbollah
Lebanon
plays a key role in the conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians, even though the conflict between Hizbollah and Israel is
treated as a separate matter. According to Hizbollah, its struggle is of
resistance against Zionism. Hizbollah has analysed Israeli politics and
ideology, as a well as the pattern of events in the Middle East and has come to
the conclusion that Israel
is set on an expansionist agenda to control much of the Middle
East.
Hizbollah contends that the Holocaust, which is used by Jews to justify the
need for a permanent home, may have been instigated by the Europeans, but is
being paid for by the Arabs. Israel’s
actions are seen as part of a larger Western Colonisation project. Hizbollah
therefore finds itself in a position where it has to defend Lebanon’s
national freedom.
Hizbollah
was born out of a major incursion by Israel
into Lebanon
in 1982. Then Israel
was fighting a war with Palestinians. The incursion, which found its way into
the capital Beirut, led to fighting between Israel and
Hizbollah forces. In 1985 Hizbollah managed to drive Israeli forces out of Beirut. Hizbollah was
then supported by Iran and Syria.
During the
delegation’s visit to Syria Hizbollah was involved in advanced negotiations
with Israel
to exchange prisoners with two Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by
Hizbollah in 2006. This was stated to be
a separate matter to the prisoner exchange negotiations between Israel and
Hamas, but the issues were said to be interlinked. Hizbollah was negotiating to
free 400 Lebanese nationals that had been jailed by Israel, some of whom had spent over
three decades in prison. Hizbollah argued that Israel had tried many forms of
aggression in order to suppress the resistance, including using the March 14 forces
and the assassination of President Hariri, but had not succeeded. This was
followed by the war in southern Lebanon
in 2006, yet Israel
failed again. Hizbollah found strength in the previous political victories and
therefore vowed to continue the resistance. Israel
and the United States
were said to have recently fallen into a weaker position in the region.
Hizbollah
argues that it has decided to join Government in order to contribute to the
rebuilding of the country. It was noted that Government faced much pressure
from the United States
and other major powers, which only served to weaken the State. It was
imperative therefore to form a coalition with the Lebanese opposition parties
in Government. Hizbollah stated that it has no intentions of dominating the
decision-making structures, even though the organisation possesses substantial
influence in Lebanon.
The reason given was that participating heavily in running the country would
clash with its mandate of being a resistance movement. It was noted that this
was the problem that Hamas had come across in the West Bank and Gaza when it assumed
office. However, it is Hizbollah’s view that the move of taking over the
administration of the Gaza Strip by Hamas was the right one given the problems
that territory had run into previously. Also, it was pointed out that Hamas
faced the danger of being crushed in the West Bank, as there were many
Palestinians there that collaborated with Israel. It was mentioned that there
are two axes operating in the Middle East.
- The first is the axis of United States and its allies, including
Arab states such as Saudi
Arabia.
- The second axis is the Resistance,
including states such as Syria
and Iran.
The two axes
are in a constant state of confrontation. Hizbollah as part of the second axis
existed for the following reasons:
- To liberate and defend Lebanon
- To resist Zionism
- To fight the United
States’ dominion over the Middle
East
It was noted
that the Palestinian cause is linked to the Hizbollah resistance by default, as
both Hizbollah and the Palestinians had one enemy, that is, the Zionist
Project. However, Hizbollah was not seeking to interfere in the affairs of the
Palestinians. Lebanon
is hosting 400,000 Palestinian refugees.
It was
pointed out that 70 percent of the population of Lebanon supported the Resistance.
Only the Sunni Muslims did not support the Resistance, as they are aligned with
Saudi Arabia, which is an
ally of the United States.
Egypt and Jordan were also stated to be on the side of the
United States
and were marked as the factors that weakened the Palestinian cause. Saudi Arabia
and Egypt had tainted their
image of being leaders in the Arab world by being seen to be assisting the United States
in creating disunity among Palestinians and among Arabs.
Hizbollah
expressed hope of strengthening relations between the Lebanese and the South Africans. It was suggested that South
Africa should support Syria
and Iran
in pursuit of the Palestinian cause.
Senegal
has come to be involved in the talks about holding the Palestinian national
dialogue. As the sitting president of the Islamic Conference, Senegal has
therefore been invited to assist in fostering
unity among Palestinians. However,
Hizbollah noted that Egypt
was trying to block President Abdulaye Wade’s role in uniting the Palestinians.
7.8 Hamas
On July 2,
2008 the delegation met with Hamas leaders in Damascus. It is the contention of Hamas that Israel is
founded on occupied territory. It also argued that Israel is a colonial project of the
West and its main purpose is to serve the interests of the West.
It was
stressed that fear and hypocrisy characterise the attitude of the West. The
latter has shown a high level of unfairness in the manner it has dealt with the
Palestinians.
However, the
Palestinians were being encouraged by a growing appreciation in the world of
the plight of the Palestinians. The world was beginning to see through the
hypocrisy of Israel.
Now Hamas is
looking forward to holding a national dialogue to talk about unity among the
different Palestinian factions. However, the challenge emanated from the fact
that Israel and the United States
do not want the national dialogue to take place. But, even a greater challenge is the group of ‘corrupt’ leaders
from within the PNA, who do not want the national dialogue to take place. These
are individuals that have called for Israel to invade the Gaza Strip and
overrun Hamas. The group has in the recent past been involved in many efforts
to sabotage Hamas by taking advantage of its weaknesses. They are apparently
not interested in a resolution.
Hamas
welcomes President Abbas’ call for a national dialogue, but they have been
disappointed by the fact that the right to facilitate the dialogue had been
given to the Egyptians who up to this date have done nothing to ensure the
national dialogue takes place. Syria
has tried to intervene, but with no success. However, the role to be played by
President Wade of Senegal
in supporting the process is viewed in a positive light. Hamas stressed that it
would like to participate in a comprehensive dialogue involving all
stakeholders.
The group of
‘spoilers’, who are said to be aligned to Fatah, have been lobbying to hold a
national dialogue of PLO factions only. Hamas notes that this is unrealistic
and unwanted.
Hamas stated
that it would welcome South
Africa’s intervention with regard to uniting Palestinians. The organisation pointed
out that it would respect a democratic process, but that it will not accept
preconditions from any party to participating in the national dialogue.
The focus in
the dialogue would be placed on the following:
- How to manage the occupation by Israel
- How to deal with the media and the popular
resistance
- Democracy and reform of the ‘Internal
House’
Hamas noted
that the United States
has only been seeking to interfere. For instance, at the Berlin Conference,
which the Secretary-General of the Arab League attended, the United States
set preconditions for the national dialogue and reconciliation process. The United States
used bullying tactics, and now the Arab nations that attended the conference
had started dragging their feet in their efforts to assist the Palestinians.
With regard
to the ceasefire agreement with Israel,
it was pointed out that the latter had not been an honest partner. For
instance, Israel
had not stuck to its bargain of doing the following:
- Respecting the mutual ceasefire
- Lifting the blockade on the Gaza Strip
- Opening the borders for the passage of
goods, humanitarian aid and free movement of the people
Israel
is accused of having broken the agreement on the issues above. It is seen as Israel’s
intention to punish the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. It was stated that
leaving the West Bank out of the agreement was a mistake, as Palestinians
continued to die at the hands of the IDF there, in full knowledge that the
militant factions from Gaza
would respond, thereby justifying the continuation of the blockade. It was
mentioned that the people that had been responsible for the retaliatory rocket
attacks were part of the group of ‘spoilers’ aligned to Fatah.
Nevertheless,
Hamas stressed its commitment to the ceasefire and said that even the
Palestinians wanted the ceasefire to hold. Hamas was now seeking to have the
Rafar border crossing with Egypt
reopened, but the later showed reluctance. As a result, Hamas has been trying
to reassure Egypt
that it would maintain strict control of movement in and out of the Gaza Strip.
But, the challenge was that the Rafar border crossing was jointly manned by Egypt and Israel. The latter knows that this
border crossing opens a door to the world and therefore suspects that Hamas
could use the opportunity to get more arms. Israel has therefore resorted to
using one of its soldiers that was kidnapped by Hamas in 2007, Gilat Shalit, as
a bargaining tool by offering to open the borders in exchange for the soldier.
Hamas states however, that the Gilat Shalit matter is only linked to the issue
of releasing Palestinians in Israeli jails. The opening of the border is seen
as a separate matter that was dealt with in the ceasefire agreement.
Hamas stated
its concern about the deteriorating health of many of the Palestinian prisoners
in Israel
jails and said that this was a humanitarian issue. But, the prisoner exchange
negotiations were moving in a sluggish pace. Hamas expressed its appreciation
for any role that South
Africa can play in this regard.
With regard
to the PNA, Hamas stated that Israel
was using it to oppress the Palestinians. Israel had managed to relieve
itself of the burden of running the administration, but still maintained
control over its affairs. Israel occupation was therefore described as a
‘cleansed occupation’ in a sense that to the world it seemed the Palestinians
were in control, but in reality, Israel is in control of the administration, to
the detriment of people in the Occupied Territories. Therefore, the PNA was
used to masquerade the occupation. Hamas is therefore determined to continue
with the resistance, because signs had shown that Israel is not prepared to see to
the realisation of Palestinian Statehood.
With regard
to the launching of rockets into southern Israel,
Hamas stated that these were one of the main defensive mechanisms at their
disposal, as Israel
had always pursued aggression against Palestinians. It had become apparent that
Israel
only understood the language of violence. This is indicated by the provocative
actions of the IDF in the West Bank, where
several people had been killed by the IDF during the period of the
ceasefire. It was pointed out that even
President Abbas had no leverage over Israel
to get it to stop the attacks in the West Bank.
It was noted
that Palestinians are faced with two parallel struggles. The first is the
internal struggle, which is that for national unity and reconciliation. The
second is the struggle against Israel’s
occupation. The decision to take over the administration of the Gaza Strip was
not meant to create divisions, neither was it meant for Hamas to assume a
special role. Hamas pointed out that its decision was intended to look after
the interests of the people. Therefore, Hamas intends to press on with the
struggle for liberation, but will only consider being part of government
afterwards.
8. The Golan
Heights Impasse
Israel
is currently involved in indirect talks with Syria
over the return of the Golan Heights, which
were occupied in 1967 following the Six-day War. The Golan
Heights are of strategic importance as the height provided by the
mountains there allows for the stationing of reconnaissance missions. Since Israel is confronted by hostile neighbours from
all fronts, it therefore regards the Golan Heights as an important component of
its security, hence its lack of desire to return this area to Syria. The
status quo is that formally Israel
and Syria
are still at war, even though both parties have not entered into violent
confrontation over the occupied territory in decades. However, in spite of the
calmness, tensions are at the highest level, especially around the Area of
Separation (AOS) where both countries have stationed troops.
It is
therefore the mission of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
(UNDOF) to ensure that both Israeli and Syria forces stay apart and that
they do not encroach upon the AOS; and also ensure that there are no activities
that may result into the resumption of a full-scale war between the two
countries.
The area
occupied by Israel is 25
kilometres west of the AOS in the Golan Heights
territory. No one is allowed in the AOS
including citizens of both countries. However, the UNDOF reports massive
numbers of violations on a daily basis and deals with them accordingly. Syrian
shepherds tend to cross the B-line
into the AOS in search of grazing land for their livestock, which is considered
a violation. Some cross the A-line where the Israel Defence Force (IDF) catches
the shepherds and treats them as terrorists, as their motives are seen as
suspect, and not without reason. There have been occasions when mines have been
thrown at the IDF from the A-line. Also there have been threats of terrorist
activity along the B-line.
But, thus far no actual incidents of terrorist activity had been reported. But,
there are rampant acts of vandalism as the technical fence, which alerts
Israeli forces to any activity along the A and B lines is often cut.
There are
plenty of anti-personnel mines within the AOS which pose a danger to civilians.
The mines were planted there during the period of the war. Due to the harsh
weather conditions, where temperatures can go up to 60 degrees Celsius, some of
the mines explode without being triggered. This is a challenge to the UNDOF as
explosions cause alarm.
However,
civilians cause other problems within and along the AOS, which make patrolling
the area a difficult task. Firstly, Israel,
which annexed the Golan Heights on 14 December
1981, an act deemed as unlawful under international law, has been running
civilian projects very close to the A-line. Secondly, Syrians have been causing
violations mainly through shepherding activities, many of which run across the
A-line, prompting reaction from the IDF. Thirdly, Syrian children tend to throw
stones at UNDOF officials.
The more
serious activities that cause tensions in the Golan Heights consist of the
ongoing arms race between Israel
and Syria.
Both sides have been improving their military capabilities, with Israel spending
three times as much as its adversary. There is evidence that Israel has
prepared Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems along the A-line. Syrians have been
digging trenches within the AOS indicating that they are preparing for war.
The UNDOF
faces many challenges in its mission. Israel has often restricted it from
patrolling along the A-line for what it terms as “security reasons”. The weather conditions in the Golan Heights can go between extremes of hot and cold.
High risk violations often take place at night, but UNDOF is not adequately
equipped to patrol at night due to resource constraints. The force is hamstrung
by serious human resources constraints. The mission is limited to 1700 forces
with a 1120 military component that is divided into three shifts. The force is
often threatened with terrorist activity along the B-line, although no incident
had been reported. Moreover, Syria
is refusing permission for the UNDOF to build helicopter paths, which may also
assist in emergency situations. Hence, the UNDOF has to rely on both Israel and Syria for airlifting services.
The politics
of the Golan Heights indicate that the
territory is but one factor in the regional political situation. For instance, according to data collected by
UNDOF, Syria
is responsible for the bulk of violations in the AOS. In 2008 alone 5228
violations were caused by Syrians. However, when carefully considered, from the
total number of violations 4900 were caused by shepherds. But, the UNDOF has
run awareness campaigns clearly indicating to the shepherds where not to go,
but violations continued regardless. This is due to the fact that most of the
shepherds used to own land that is currently occupied by Israel across
the A-line and many still refer to those lands as theirs and maintain vivid
memories of how life used to be across before the occupation.
Although Israel is negotiating the return of the Golan Heights, it has indicated that it would keep part
of the territory for security reasons in what is termed a buffer zone. Over and
above that Israel is keeping
the Golan Heights because of the rich
agricultural land and crucial water resources that the territory possesses.
This however does not build confidence as it indicates that Israel will still be prepared for war in spite
of reaching a settlement with Syria.
Also, the focus on the negotiations with Syria
is for Israel,
it is argued, a good excuse to delay reaching a settlement with the
Palestinians. It is not known when Syria
and Israel will reach an
agreement, as the negotiations may well go on for over a decade, since the
talks facilitated by Turkey
are by their nature indirect.
9. Observations
Apart from
the meetings, the delegation received video and reading materials and had the
opportunity to visit towns and villages Israel
and Palestine
and historical sites.
In Hebron the delegation
observed the brutality of living under the occupation by the IDF. It was clear
to the delegation that Palestinian lives are forever under threat from the
Israel Military. The presence of
settlers has drastically disturbed the normal life of Palestinians that live in
the old city. Some of the streets have been closed to Palestinians and are used
exclusively by Jewish settlers.
The
delegation witnessed the checkpoints and the humiliating manner in which
Palestinians are treated, by not being allowed to use their vehicles to go
across at the checkpoints. The delegation was informed that only those with
permits were allowed to use their vehicles. This ultimately led to the queuing
of motor vehicles driven by Palestinians. The fact that this occurred in the Occupied Territories drove the message home about
what it means to live under occupation. Jews do not have to produce documentation
at checkpoints and they also do not have to queue along with the Palestinians.
The delegation was told that the IDF soldiers communicate with Jews settlers by
using signals, which allows for easy identification. Thus Jews do not face
obstacles and are also not made to feel the discomfort that is felt by
Palestinians when they cross checkpoints.
The
delegation undertook visits to the holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. Access to the holy sites is
controlled by Israeli Military. The sites are generally open to the public but
Government can restrict access when it finds a reason to do that. The presence
of IDF soldiers was seen all around the sites.
The
delegation was informed that the Government of Israel is conducting
archaeological excavations under the holy sites of Jerusalem. Most of the digging occurs under
the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest Muslim sites in the Middle
East, where Government claims that it is searching for the remains
of the Jewish Temple that was there before the Mosque was built, which
Palestinians refute as nonsense. It was noted that the excavations are
endangering the foundations of the Mosque and further digging will result in
the collapse of the building. This would most likely cause fierce violent
conflict to erupt between Jews and Palestinians and would also send raptures
throughout the Arab world. Some stated that this is actually what the Israeli
Government wants to happen so that a fresh conflict may erupt which would lead
to more Palestinians being forced off the land, as they are no match for the
powerful IDF.
Earlier it
was noted that Arab-Israelis are concerned by the emphasis by the Government of
Israel on the need to review the identity of the Jewish State. The major
concern is that a refined identity of Israel
could mean that Arabs no longer have a place in Israel, which Palestinians still
regard as their historic homeland. The delegation agreed, but in the same vein
noted that they will not support the establishment of an Islamic State in Israel, as this
also carries connotations of exclusion of others that do not subscribe to
Islam.
9.1 The Israel-Palestinian
Conflict and Middle-East Geo-politics
Arab-Israelis
do see a connection between the Israel-Palestine conflict and the politics of
the Middle-East. There is talk of the ‘Fifth Column’. This term refers to a
subpopulation group that is seen to be more loyal to other countries or nations
other than its own. Thus, the term is applied in reference to a country such as
Egypt, which used to
vehemently support the Palestinian cause, but is now seen as a weak link
because the United States
has arguably been able to influence the manner in which Egypt relates with Israel.
Through aid given to Egypt
by the United States, Israel has been
able to deal effectively with one of its biggest adversaries.
The
delegation was also informed that Saudi Arabia was also seen to be
tending towards being a ‘Fifth Column’ State.
This is in spite of the various efforts the State has taken to advance
the Palestinian cause and to bring unity among members of Fatah and Hamas.
Notably Saudi Arabia’s
most recent achievement is brokering the Mecca Agreement. However, the State is
seen to be tending towards the West. Hence, others like Hizbollah argue that
the State is losing its credibility as a leader of the Arab world.
The Humanitarian Situation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
and the Gaza
Strip
The
information contained under this section is largely informed by discussions
held with and documents handed to the delegation by key UN bodies such as the
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA),
based in the West Bank. UNOCHA pointed to the
Geneva Fourth Convention, which makes it illegal to build settlements on
occupied territory.
Israel
is aware of this but it continues to build settlements on Palestinian occupied
territory, albeit at an accelerated pace. The building of settlements on
Palestinian territory does of course carry security implications for the people
that live near the settlements.
UNOCHA made
some observations on the impact of Jewish settlements in the West
Bank.
Jewish
settlers have made life difficult for Palestinians in the West
Bank. Closed military areas have been set up near the homes of
Palestinians and the people living there do not have permanent resident status
as a result. This applies particularly to areas along the border with Jordan, where Israel has established a security
zone and nature reserves.
The Jews
have amassed large tracts of the best land for agricultural activities, leaving
Palestinians with poorer lands.
The
demographic situation is rapidly changing in Jerusalem as a result of Palestinians that
have been removed and new residential buildings that are being erected for Jews
around the city. This therefore confirms the notion that Israel intends to unite East and West Jerusalem in order to create one unified capital.
In the April
2008 issue of ‘The Humanitarian Monitor’, a newsletter by UNOCHA, it is noted
that 24 Palestinian children in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip were killed, while 38 were injured during conflict between IDF
soldiers and Palestinians. During this period only one Israeli child was
injured when a rocket was fired from the Gaza Strip into the western Negev region.
Also, by the end of April 2008 327 Palestinian children were held in
Israeli prisons, and four of the children were girls. Seventeen (17) were
detained for interrogation purposes, while 12 were in administrative detention,
that is, detention without charges or trial.
In March 1993, in response to attacks by Palestinians in Israel, Israel
imposed a general closure on the Occupied
Territories and erected
checkpoints to enforce it. The
movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled. Through check-points and other
obstacles such as road blocks, road gates, trenches, earth walls and road
fences, the Israeli authorities have severely limited the movement of
Palestinians such that they have prevented many from pursuing their means of
livelihood, as they fail to get to work. In the meantime Palestinians lose a
significant amount of resources as they have to use longer routes to move
around, in an environment where inflation in the Occupied Territories
is significantly high. In certain cases Palestinians find a little relief in
the use of tunnels, which are referred to as ‘Routes of Life’. However, as
UNOCHA pointed out, some of these routes are closed and opened at the mercy of
Israeli soldiers. Therefore, moving around in the West
Bank tends to be very problematic for Palestinians.
There are
currently 687 checkpoints in the West Bank.
Besides checkpoints there are numerous other obstacles that have blocked off
access to certain areas for Palestinians. These include concrete blocks,
man-made mounds, trenches, road gates and earth walls.
Whereas the
Green Line used to be 320 km long, the barrier wall that separates the West
Bank from Israel
is 725 km long. This is due to settlements that have forced the wall to run
deep into the West Bank in an apparent plot by
the Israeli government to roll back Palestinian territories, UNOCHA argues.
This means in graphical terms that the wall stretches a distance that can be
compared to travelling from Johannesburg to Durban by road and then turning
back to do half the distance, whereby one finds themselves in Ladysmith in
Kwazulu-Natal.
The Israeli government enforces a comprehensive closure
on certain occasions by prohibiting the entry of Palestinians into Israel, and revoking permits for, among other
things, work, medical treatment, family visits, usage of roads, and travel to Ben-Gurion Airport. The comprehensive closure is
much more strictly enforced against citizens of the Gaza Strip, which suffers
from a blockade enforced by the Israeli Government. All five border crossings
between Israel and the Gaza
Strip, including the Rafah crossing on the Egypt side of the border were put
under comprehensive closure. Israel
has been able to ensure that the Rafah Crossing remains closed to the citizens
of Gaza, since it controls this crossing point
jointly with Egypt.
Fishing boats from the Gaza Strip are not allowed to go beyond 6 nautical miles
or 3km from the shore and vessels contravening this directive may be sunk by
the Israel Coast Guard or their crews could face detention in Israel. As a
result of being restricted from access to the sea, Gaza Strip fishermen suffer
losses of up to 74 percent of the usual output.
It is said due to the blockade on the Gaza Strip, 80 percent
of the population there lives in poverty, while a further 10 percent lives in
abject poverty. This means that 90 percent of the population in the Gaza Strip
is living with the severe effects of the blockade. Some of the effects of the
blockade include the non-provision of basic services, such as rubbish collection,
water and sanitation. It was pointed out
that as a result of not being connected to the sewage system, the sewage has to
be dumped in the sea, thus endangering sea life. Not only sea life is affected
by this, but humans have also been subjected to a health hazard. Moreover, the
Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, which handles water and sanitation
matters in the Gaza Strip, whilst it has redirected sewage to the sea, this has
not effectively removed the threat of sewage flooding into the streets into residential
areas, thus posing even much more of a health risk.
The blockade has resulted into the Gaza Strip residents
being denied of sufficient fuel and electricity supplies. Fuel shortages affect
a number of sectors including agriculture, health, water and sanitation. Gaza Strip hospitals have had to cut services
due to power cuts and the shortage of fuel.
This means that ambulances stopped functioning and surgical operations could no
longer be conducted.
The sick have therefore had to seek medical assistance in Israel, but
many have been classified as security risks by Israeli authorities and thus
they failed to pass through the Erez border crossing.
In terms of agriculture, many farmers have been severely
affected. For instance, poultry meat has become scarce due to farmers not being
able to keep their chickens warm. Irrigation for crops is negatively affected
because the water pumping system depends on the availability of electricity.
Hence, crops die due to draught. The main method used to rescue crops is by
means of premature harvesting.
The visit to
Israel and Palestine
took place at a time when the Egyptian government had just brokered a ceasefire
between Israel
and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The terms of the calmness agreement, as it is
commonly referred to, are that for six months both Hamas and Israel would
halt attacks on either side and the latter would gradually lift the blockade on
the Gaza Strip. Therefore, fuel and
other essential supplies would be allowed to make their way through, which
would be a welcomed relief for the besieged Gaza inhabitants. After a period of six
months the agreement would come under review. The delegation found that there
was much doubt on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides on whether the
ceasefire agreement would indeed last.
9.2 The Jewish State versus
the Islamic State
On several
occasions the issue of the Jewish State came up. The implication of having a
Jewish State is that one has to deal with a State that is constructed along
ethnic lines; that excludes others; and that which is basically undemocratic.
The delegation noted that this is against what South Africa stands for. In the
same vein one needs to be careful of the call for an Islamic State, as this
carries the same implications as noted with the Jewish State.
10. Recommendations
The
delegation, pursuant to its mandate to make recommendations to Parliament on
how to approach the matter of the Israel-Palestine conflict notes the
following:
- South
African Parliament should request SALGA to engage with Arab-Israeli Mayors
in particular to discuss issues affecting them.
- South
African Parliament to engage and form inter-parliamentary relations with
Arab-Israelis in the Knesset in particular and the Knesset in general so
there can be visits between the two Parliaments to discuss their
experiences and challenges.
- The
Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs would invite the Israeli Ambassador
to South Africa
to discuss the human rights violations, racially discriminatory policies
by Israel Governmentagainst
Palestinians in general, but Arab-Israelis in particular.
- The
European Union (EU) should be engaged on its funding policies towards Israel
that tend to neglect human rights, and also on the issue of discrimination
on funding for Arab-Israeli citizens to study at universities.
- Parliament
to investigate the impact of the trade relations between South Africa and Israel with a view to
recommend the appropriate steps to be taken on this issue.
- South
African Parliament should demand the release of Palestinian Members of
Parliament who along with the Speaker, Mr Aziz Duwaik are detained in Israel,
under what is referred to as “administrative detention”.
- The
South African Foreign Missions in Israel
and Palestine
through the Department of Foreign Affairs should submit reports every six
months to Parliament on human rights violations and on other critical
developments in the political situations of their countries in which they
are accredited.
- Parliament
should look into ways of bringing to the fore the human rights violations
occurring in the Occupied Territories, by for instance requesting the
South African Broadcasting Cooperation (SABC) to consider increased
coverage of events in Palestine.
- The
Human Rights Commission should be encouraged to interact with Palestinian
human rights bodies and to assist where possible.
- South Africa should approach the UN Human
Rights Commission to investigate the human rights situation of the
Palestinians for purposes of advising the UN General Assembly of its
findings.
- The
Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs would strengthen its relations with
the Palestinian Legislative Council Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- The
South African Parliament should seek to raise the issue of the
Israel-Palestine conflict in various international Parliamentary forums
that it participates in. This should be done in order to assist
Palestinians, including the refugees living in the Diaspora in realising
their human rights.
- Parliament
should request the South African Government to consider a process to facilitate
talks between and amongst the Palestinian factions towards a national
dialogue and a process of national reconciliation and also engage with the
Arab League in this regard.
- During
the remainder of its term in the United Nations Security Council, South Africa should request the UN to
evaluate its work in the Palestinian territories and to give a report on
the non-compliance of Israel
to its decisions.
- South Africa should continue to condemn the
continuation of the building of the wall in line with an international
judgement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
- Further
investigation is required into the alleged multimillion rand deals between
Transnet and Israel,
involving the companies NICE Systems Ltd. and Orsus Solutions Israel Ltd.
- The Department
of Education should seek to engage with Israel on the possibility of
making educational facilities available to Arab-Israelis.
- Parliament
should also assist in the finalisation of a partnership agreement with
universities in South
Africa for purposes of educational
mutual recognition.
- Parliament
should assist in the facilitation of a request by the An Najah University
located in Nablus
to confer an honorary degree to President Nelson Mandela.
- Parliament
to investigate the unusual security arrangement that Airports Company of
South Africa (ACSA) has with Israel at the OR Tambo
airport.
- Having
noted a series of complaints about the persistent lack of support from the
Middle East Desk, the Portfolio Committee calls on the Department of
Foreign Affairs to give detailed briefing on the situation.
- Parliament
should take note that there is a growing tendency by Foreign Governments
to set conditions as to the relationships of States and as to who is
allowed to relate to who, as the members of the Portfolio Committee we
urge that South Africa must take a firm principled position that it is its
sovereign decision as to who it may want to interact at any given point and as it
may deem appropriate, and that no government or its organs can place
conditions on who South Africa should or shouldn’t engage.
- The
Portfolio Committee should urge Parliament to support a viable Palestinian State
alongside a secure Israeli
State but not in
exclusion of other possibilities that may result in a peaceful coexistence
of the nations.
- The
Portfolio Committee recommends to Parliament to strengthen relations with
the parliaments of Syria
and Lebanon.
- Parliament
should communicate its concern on the continued siege over the Gaza Strip.
- Parliament
to urge Government to engage with Hamas as a key stakeholder in the
conflict.
Report to be considered.