Committee Report on Symposium on Israeli/Palestine Conflict and Palestinian bid for statehood; Committee Report on Gaza trip: 7-11 December 2011

Meeting report

Consideration of the Draft Committee Report on its trip to Gaza: 7-11 December 2011
The Chairperson said that the Gaza trip was per invitation of the Council for European and Palestinian Relations. There were withdrawals from several members from parties at the last minute, so only ANC members went. The report was based on the various engagements that were held and the sites visited in the Gaza Strip. Amongst other things, the members had meetings with non-governmental organisation (NGOs), men, women, widows, fishermen, the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), the al-Shefa Hospital, the Palestinian Legislative Authority (PLA), the Prime Minister Ishmael Haniya, and the Ministry of Detainees Affairs. He requested engagement on the report from Members.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) commented on the ‘attack’ of Israel in the report. She said that there were always at least two sides, and it seemed no effort was made to find out what was on the other side. Was the Committee afraid to see it and see the story in its entirety? The recommendations in the report made it impossible for the Committee to see the picture as a whole.

Mr I Davidson (DA) wanted clarification on the purpose of the debate. If members simply gave their opinion, the debate would be highly subjective and personal. It was important to get a real handle on the issues of the area and to use South Africa’s history to try to make a meaningful impact on the processes happening in the Middle East. The government had a policy on this topic, and that should be the guiding light on policy going forward.

He said there was a need to focus on a two-state solution, recognise that there were two parties, and engage with both. A significant problem with the report was that no opposition members were present. He added that it was enormously one-sided, and members could not begin to address resolutions if the report did not even reflect on the Israeli situation. Members needed to know both sides before rushing into resolutions on the matter. He suggested taking out all ‘loaded’ words, and proposed a fact-finding mission to both Palestine and Israel. If there were not, the credibility of Parliament would be undermined.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) said he shared the sentiments of his colleagues. The parties that submitted to the workshops on the issues supported the two-state solution, the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine, and the roadmap, all of which would lead to a recommendation that would want to take into account the two situations. Therefore, the recommendations needed to be amended. Using the term ‘solidarity visit’ in the first recommendation was ‘pre-judging’ and the situation needed to be left open.

The second recommendation stated that Parliament needed to foster ‘Parliament to parliament relations with the PLA’. Mr Skosana said that the Israeli Legislative Authority needed to be added. Not long ago the Committee requested the creation of a presidential multi-party peace envoy for the Middle East from Parliament. The peace envoy was to consist of the heads of Parliament, and then be advised by the President and the Minister of International Relations. The Middle East issue in Parliament was an emotive issue and consensus was hard to obtain from all parties. He felt that the peace envoy would yield good results.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) said that in the report on the symposium of 16 November 2011, there was input from the Jewish Board of Deputies, the International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem, the South African Zionist Federation, the Open Shuhada Street, COSATU, and the Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa. She said it was not as though the Israeli viewpoint was left out of the equation. Since 1994, there had been ‘umpteenth’ visits to the area that consisted of several parties. When Ms Dene Smuts (DA) visited the area, she visited both Palestine and Israel.

Ms Hajaig said that if Ms Dudley had not been to Palestine, it was a good opportunity to visit. The state of Palestine was ‘worse than the worse days of apartheid’. This issue had been going on for 60 years and everyone wanted a solution. Without the assistance and complete support without impunity by United States to the state of Israel, Palestine and Israel would have come closer by now.

Mr Davidson asked again what the Committee was debating; the report on Gaza or the report on the symposium. He suggested that the Gaza report be discussed first.

The Chairperson said that the issues were so intertwined that there was no way that members would not at least refer to the issues. He advised members to be tolerant, and allowed them to make references to the symposium.

Ms R Magau (ANC) said that the report on the symposium had been in the Committee for some time. She suggested considering the symposium report prior to addressing the Gaza trip report.

Mr Davidson said he heard the Chairperson tell members to address the Gaza report first.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Gaza report was to be discussed first, but references to the symposium report were allowed.

Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) came to the same conclusion as Ms Dudley. The Committee had to be careful in the manner in which they covered their report. He could not contest the issues that were factual and empirically-backed. However, the recommendations were leading to a point where the position of the country was reflected. He feared this, and disagreed with the recommendations because they compromised the country. A previous initiative tried to find the solution on both sides, but the process was hampered because of the ANC’s historical alliance with Palestine. He asked why the term ‘solidarity’ was used and suggested it be removed from the report.

He advised that the ‘parliament to parliament relations with the PLA’ were needed, but should be undertaken in the future and not presently.

Mr M Booi (ANC) said that the Committee faced a difficult situation. Due to the recent change in regimes in the Middle East, South Africa’s position had changed as well. He acknowledged that the wording of ‘solidarity’ was not correct and needed to be changed. He asked where Parliament stood at this moment and what should their decisions mean. He added that the membership of the Committee had not been stable, and members were picking up a debate that had started long ago.

Ms Dudley mentioned that with regards to symposium report, there were pro-Palestinian organisations there as well. She said it would be helpful for opposition parties to be invited on the Palestinian trip.

The Chairperson said that there was consensus about the fact-finding mission, but there was a fundamental problem with the ‘solidarity’ issue.

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) mentioned that if the Committee went to Israel, different information would be included in the report. He suggested the addition of ‘and Israel’ to the first recommendation concerning the fact-finding mission to Palestine.

Ms Dudley said that certain people went to Gaza with certain views and saw certain things, so if that was the report, that was it. However, she wanted a similar exercise conducted in Israel.

On the topic of ‘solidarity’, she asked how much the Committee was going to interfere. They should want people to move forward to a place they wanted to be.

Mr Booi said it was important for all of them to give support to the Gaza visit and the report. He suggested that they accept the report, visit Israel, and then decide on recommendations.

Mr Davidson said he had a problem with adopting the report and accepting the problems within it. There had been no attempt to test the veracity of the facts given to them by Palestine.

Mr Booi interrupted and said ‘accept the report’, and then deal with the contents of the report.

The Chairperson wanted members to come to a conclusion on the matter.

Mr Davidson thought the Committee should note the report and was content with the idea of visiting both Palestine and Israel.

Mr Ngonyama was worried about the manner of the debate and said the Committee should be at one with the issues. The recommendation of ‘parliament to parliament relations with the PLA’ was premature. The first recommendation seemed to be agreed upon; Israel was to be included in the fact-finding mission. The third recommendation needed to be removed, since they did not want to exaggerate the belligerency in the area. South Africa could not be a player and a referee at the same time.

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) asked if the Committee could note the report on Gaza.

Mr Skosana said they could note the report and rephrase the recommendations.

The Chairperson clarified how the delegation to Gaza was formed and that at the last minute, members of the opposition cancelled. It was not intentional that only ANC members attended. There was agreement about the find-finding mission to both Palestine and Israel and to remove ‘solidarity’ from the first recommendation. He proposed that the second and third recommendations be removed, or the second be expanded to include Israel.

Mr Skosana said the third recommendation should not be removed, but changed to read “Parliament highlight the crisis in the Middle East…”

The Chairperson asked if the second recommendation should be expanded or deleted.

Members agreed to expand it.

The report was adopted with the proposed amendments.

Consideration on the Report on the Symposium held on 16 November, 2011
The Chairperson wanted to dispose of issues raised in the previous meeting. There had been a debate about the theme of the symposium, what the representatives of the Zionist Federation may or may not have said, and what Ambassador of Israel Mr Dov Segev-Steinberg may or may not have said.

The theme under which the symposium was held was: ‘Experiences from South Africa, thoughts on the Middle East, and the Palestinian question’. It could not be changed because that would change the record of what happened.

During the previous meeting, Ms Dudley had noted that the representative of the Zionist Federation could not have said that Palestine was a democracy. The Chairperson said the records indicated the he had said: ‘the Zionist Federation respected the right of Palestine to have a state of their own, as well as the right of the people to select their own leaders. Israel only wished to have the same right as [Palestine] did. ’

There had been contention about line six, point seven on page five. To clarify, he quoted the Ambassador verbatim: ‘we cannot understand why the international community, especially South Africa, does not clarify to the PLA that it cannot bypass peace talks and help persuade Palestinians finally to return to the negotiating table for a direct dialogue with Israel. This is the South African way, and this is the right and the only way to reach peace. ’

The Chairperson said Ms Dudley had recommended adding ‘Security’ to Land and Religion to page seven.

He said there had been extensive discussions on the report, and he had just clarified the flagged issues. The report was up for adoption by the Committee. Various parties had submitted recommendations, but he wanted to finalise the report, and then discuss the resolutions afterwards.

The report was adopted. The Chairperson invited members to engage about the various parties’ recommendations.

Mr Davidson commented that the DA was not at the symposium and therefore, it was difficult to submit much input. He noted that they needed to be careful that the resolutions did not conflict with the resolution that was tabled. He suggested suspending judgement until the trip to both Israel and Palestine was completed.

Ms Magau agreed with Mr Davidson about suspending judgement until the trip to both countries was done.

Mr Skosana agreed with the proposal and added that the parties had ‘views’, not resolutions.

Ms Jacobus agreed. She advised to put the matter on hold, but when they did come with their views, the Committee should consolidate them into one document. It was too time-consuming to have various party documents.

All parties agreed.

The Chairperson said there had been a request from the Minister to Speaker about a visit to Israel and Palestine in 2010 that related to the imprisonment, detention and punishment of members of the PLA in Israel. The Committee would have met with both sides, but it did not take place due to problems in Egypt at the time. He said that he would check if the Committee could still undertake that visit.

Mr Booi advised to consult with the Minister to see what he expected out of the Committee’s trip.

Mr Nyogama said it would be advisable to visit with a broad mandate and truly look at the situation.

The Chairperson said he would try that route, and if it were not possible, he would make a completely new application.

Ms Dudley asked if they could include asking opposition members on the next trip.

Mr Davidson said he had expected that the ACDP would not be invited to Gaza, and he advised them to make a special application.

The Chairperson said that under no circumstances was there to be a situation where the Committee should go, and subsequently have the report disowned by the members who did not go.

Ms Hajaig said there was a formula and smaller parties’ members went on a rotation basis.

The Chairperson concluded the discussion.

Discussion
The Chairperson reported that he had received a communication from the Ambassador Jerry Matjila, the Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, on the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) exposure. Amb Matjila said the Department was going on study trips to other countries to see how they dealt with Development Partnership Agencies, and requested that the Committee nominate one person to participate in the study trip.

A member nominated the Chairperson.

Mr Davidson said that since South Africa was a multiparty democracy, one member could not represent the Committee. As a matter of principle, this type of invitation to one person was not appropriate.

Mr Ngonyama said that the Chairperson was the best-placed because he oversaw the Committee.

Mr Booi advised the Committee to accept the letter.

The Chairperson said that he would attempt to apply for Parliament to pay for two additional members to participate in the study trip.

The meeting was adjourned.