(11th September 2013)
The ACDP was aware that Parliaments International Relations Portfolio Committee Report was likely to be biased to some degree, in that the majority of Committee Members make no apology for their uncompromising solidarity with the Palestinian cause. We were aware that the agenda for the PC visit to Gaza, Palestine and Israel heavily favoured a pro-Palestine/anti Israel sector of society. But we were also aware that any attempt to bring this to the committee’s attention and to request they include more informative pro-Israel individuals or groups was being received as control and manipulation and was overtly rejected.
The ACDP reasoned that it would be in the best interests of Israel/SA Relations for the committee to experience Israel without being on the defensive and determined to hear nothing. For this reason we supported the agenda and observed members of the committee attempt to be open-minded, seeing, listening and even hearing things they would have been inclined to reject out of hand. Personally I think we made enormous strides forward, although that does not mean that individually or collectively members of the committee will abandon their commitment to being anti-Israel in order to act on their unconditional solidarity with Palestine.
The Report did not conclude anything – it reported what was presented to the PC, gave a summary of the questions asked by the committee and summarised the responses. The Gaza report was the result of a visit to Gaza by the Committee in 2011 – a delegation I was not part of. My understanding was that this report would not be relevant and therefore not included, once the 2013 delegation reported on Gaza. This however did not happen as Israel did not allow the committee to visit Gaza and Hebron – this was unfortunate and left no alternative but for the committee to refer to the original Gaza report. I make note here that getting to visit Israel was not an easy matter and the trip had been postponed many times due to reluctance - for various reasons - on the part of Israel.
Having said that – and because the ACDP was no part of the delegation to Gaza it is important for us to note that the blockade was not imposed immediately after the evacuation of all Israelis from the Gaza Strip in 2005 but only after the “Battle of Gaza” in June 2007 when Hamas violently ousted Fatah and seized full control and after Israel suffered innumerable rocket attacks. PM Ariel Sharon's plan in 2004 for disengagement from Gaza stated clearly that Israel was committed to the peace process and in promoting improvement of the economy and welfare of the Palestinian residents.
Believe it or not, Israel believes that a high standard of living for the Palestinians is important for the achievement of good neighborly relations. Many projects were in the pipeline for joint ventures fostering cooperation between Jews and Arabs and creating employment. Unfortunately very little is known, even by experts on Palestine, about the many cooperative efforts that existed at that time and about the ambitious plans for expansion that should be rekindled. Israel and the Palestinian Authority cooperated in creating employment opportunities along the “seam-line" between Israel and the territories and in areas under the jurisdiction of the PA.
A very successful industrial zone was created at Erez, employing about 5,000 workers in some 200 businesses half of which were Palestinian-owned. This was part of a larger Gaza Industrial Estate slated to provide up to 50,000 jobs. In addition a joint industrial zone was planned south of Tulkarm intended to provide jobs for more than 5,000 Palestinians. Additional areas were planned for Jenin and the Kerem Shalom area near Rafah in Gaza. But all these positive efforts were tragically thwarted when the zone became the target of deadly Palestinian attacks leading to closure of the enterprises.
The 2013 visit to Ramallah and Israel, in terms of being an “investigation” was not without its weaknesses either - the report in many ways reflects this in recording the focus on individuals and organizations with a pro-palestine or anti-Israel position.
The ACDP had hoped, however, that despite the unlevel playing field in terms of material presented to the committee - the Parliamentary Committee delegation would have had the courage to overcome their natural bias and commit to a greater degree of balance in proposing a resolution.
The ACDP is known to have a similar sense of solidarity when it comes to Israel due to our mutual biblical history regarding Israel and the disputed territory. With this in mind we have chosen not to disregard the ANC proposal out of hand and have tried to find a way to bring some balance. We do not agree with everything in the proposed resolution but understand that much of the success of our democracy in South Africa is due to compromise that takes us forward. We genuinely want peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people.
The ACDP would like to commend IBSA on their statement on the Middle East Peace - we recognize this approach as being an example of true leadership committed to peace and development for all people living in the Middle East. (Statement included below)
Despite the obstacles it is essential that Israel, the PA and Hamas endeavor to come to terms in the interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people. Towards this end, the peace brokers should be encouraged by the examples of positive pre-intifada events described above, to believe that cooperation rather than confrontation is achievable and would undoubtedly be mutually beneficial.
IBSA Statement on the Middle East Peace, 23 August 2013
Taking into consideration the previous declarations of the India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA) on the Middle East Peace Process, the Foreign Ministers of India, Salman Khurshid; Brazil, Antonio Patriota and South Africa, Maite Nkoana Mashabane, after consultations, agreed on the following statement:
We reaffirm that the Israeli Palestinian conflict remains an urgent and key issue for the international community, the resolution of which is a prerequisite for building a sustainable and lasting peace in the Middle East region.
We support the mediation efforts undertaken by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and welcome the announcement of the resumption of direct final status negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. This is an encouraging development, one that has the potential for reverting the deadlock and paralysis that have plagued the peace process in recent years. We hope this renewed effort will lead to the full and overdue realization of a two state solution based on 1967 borders.
We have noted with satisfaction the decision of Israel to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, which is a gesture that contributes to the spirit of cooperation surrounding the negotiations. We are also pleased with the announcement made on 30 July by Mr. Kerry indicating that the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators are committed to reaching a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months. Such an agreement should culminate in the full realization of an independent Palestinian State. We call on the parties to adhere strictly to this timetable.
As we reiterate our call for the Security Council to fully exercise its functions under the UN Charter, with regard to the Palestinian Question, we express our firm belief that the Council should provide sustained support to the peace process and work towards its full and satisfactory completion.
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & COOPERATION
No comments:
Post a Comment