Gaza: Israeli Ambassador briefing

Meeting report

Introduction by Chairperson
Mr Sithole said that the Israeli ambassador had been invited to discuss the ongoing situation in Gaza as the level of violence against the Palestinian civilians had become intolerable.  He expressed his distaste at the number of women and children that had been killed by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) as well as the continued attacks on ‘soft’ targets such as UN offices, schools as well as institutions of religious significance. He added that the excessive use of military power by the IDF was not in tandem with that of Hamas and called for restraint from the IDF.

Mr Sithole noted that during a South African Parliamentary visit to Israel in July 2008, the Israeli government refused to meet with the parliamentary delegation as the delegation had indicated that they would meet with Hamas as well. He noted that this attitude could be considered as hypocritical given the fact that the Israeli government themselves had been in contact with Hamas at that time and expressed his concern at Israel’s refusal to meet the Speaker of the Palestinian Parliament that had been detained in an Israeli jail.

He added that the treatment of the delegation by the Israeli government had been considered as unfortunate as the purpose of the visit had been to engage with both the Israeli as well as Palestinian authorities in order to gain a balanced perspective on the matter.

Ambassador Dos Segar Steinberg (Ambassador, State of Israel) said that he had objected to the manner by which he had been treated by Ms Fatima Hajig, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, three weeks previously when he had been summoned by the latter. Mr Steinberg said that he would be happy to engage with the Committee on the current situation in Gaza, but would not allow himself to be bashed in that manner again and expressed his hope that the meeting would be cordial.

Ambassador Steinberg added that he hoped that during his tenure, relations between Israel and South Africa would be strengthened as South Africa commanded a very influential role on the international stage. He stressed that South Africa could play a very important and supportive role in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, but that this had been found wanting due to South Africa’s biased, one sided and unbalanced view on the matter. He hoped that South Africa would change this position and adopt a more balanced perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict.

Mr Sithole said that no stone would be left unturned and that the Committee would engage with Ambassador Steinberg robustly and that if it came across as bashing to the Ambassador then it would be most unfortunate. He noted that as a Chairperson he had never censured Members and would not do it during the meeting.

Mr S Ramgobin (ANC) added that Ambassador Steinberg had no right to extend his displeasure to the Committee as he did want to listen to the Ambassador’s rationalisation. He asked that the Ambassador withdraw his remark as the Committee would never insult its guests and would only accord respect to the Ambassador.

Ambassador Steinberg replied that he would be happy to engage with the Committee as long as it was cordial and dignified.

Mr Steve Swart (ACDP) disagreed with Mr Ramgobin and noted that the Ambassador had merely expressed his disapproval of the treatment he had received at the hands of Deputy Minister Hajaig and should thus not be asked to withdraw his comment as he had merely expressed his opinion. Mr Swart suggested that the Chairperson proceed with the meeting and that the Committee exercise its oversight role over the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Sithole said that the conditions that the Ambassador had set were typical of the Israeli government and said that South Africa was an independent country and would not allow foreign governments to dictate to the National Assembly on how it should conduct its affairs.

He pointed out that Parliament could not dictate nor speak on the Executive’s behalf and that the Committee would not restrain its engagement just because somebody felt that they were being bashed.

Briefing by Israeli Ambassador
Ambassador Steinberg said that in 2005/2006 municipal elections had been held in Gaza that had propelled Hamas to power. This eventually led to a coup by Hamas in 2007 that had killed, expelled and pushed opposition members to flee to the West Bank. He noted that since this had happened, Israel had endured constant rocket shelling from the Hamas-controlled Gaza and that this situation had eventually stopped when a truce between Israel and Hamas had been reached. On the 19 December 2008 when the truce expired, Hamas had decided not to renew their commitment to peace and started shelling Israeli towns and cities that had killed and injured innocent civilians and caused great damage. He noted that Hamas was an extremist group of Muslim radicalism that served the warped ideology masterminded by Iran that called for the destruction of Israel.

Since the 19 December 2008, Hamas had fired over a hundred rockets per day into southern Israel and that this had led the Israeli government to conclude that “enough was enough” and that self-defence had been the only option against Hamas which had called for the destruction of Israel. Ambassador Steinberg said that the military offensive against Hamas had been aimed against Hamas and to destroy he underground tunnels from Egypt that had been used to smuggle weapons, ammunitions, equipment and rockets into Gaza.

Hamas shelled Israel with rockets that had been much more sophisticated then earlier ones and that could reach larger distances. This situation prompted the IDF to plan and open a second phase that articulated into a ground offensive that had been aimed at destroying the arsenal that Hamas had at its disposal and to create as little damage as possible. In the first 5 days of the Operation Cast Lead, Israel had ensured the delivery of 6,500 tons of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, despite the ongoing shelling by Hamas. An unfortunate and tragic situation had evolved in Gaza due to the actions of Hamas and that it had used Palestinians as human shields against IDF military responses, an action which was against international law. The use of religious places of worship (mosques) and schools by Hamas should be decried by the international community as Israel got blamed when it shelled these institutions and harmed innocent Palestinians. Hamas should thus shoulder the blame for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians as they had been using these civilians as weapons of war. He stated that Israel had on many occasions informed Gaza residents through phone calls and leaflets that an attack was eminent and that they had to evacuate to avoid danger.

The Israeli offensive against Hamas was based on the fact that it had a radical extremist premise that called for the destruction of the State of Israel and that Hamas had been in cahoots with Iran and Hizbollah. This had shifted a conflict that had been based on a land issue to a religious one due to their involvement. Israel had no intention to return to Gaza but that the conflict would only cease, once Hamas recognised Israel’s right to exist, the rocket shelling abated and the smuggling of weapons stopped. He hoped that Israel and the Palestinian Authority would renew peace talks so that an independent Palestinian state could live peacefully next to the State of Israel.

Operation Cast Lead

IDF: Limiting Harm to Civilians

The difference between Hamas and Israel had been that the latter targeted Hamas military installations, whereas Hamas targeted Israeli civilians, with a modus operandi that had been based on launching attacks from populated areas whereas the IDF strived to avoid harm to civilians and non-military sites in the Gaza Strip. Israel had evidence that weapons and ammunition had been stored in houses, mosques, hospitals and schools in Gaza and that Hamas had made use of human shields.

It was noted that in one neighbourhood 30 homes had been found to be mined with explosives and that the location of Hamas military installations amongst civilians had caused a major dilemma to the IDF and that terrorist organizations that hit behind civilians bared the primary responsibility for civilian casualties.

In order for the IDF to limit damage and harm to Palestinian civilians the IDF made use of various methods that diminished civilian casualties. The IDF made regular telephone calls to Palestinians to warn them about an attack, distributed pamphlets, pin-pointed attacks, delayed attacks and used small munitions to frighten civilians away.

Discussion
Adv Z Madaza (ANC) noted that the Ambassador had made the point that Hamas had not have conventional military barracks and installations and that Hamas military’ installations could be found amongst civilians and that this thus meant that civilians would get hurt as the Hamas ‘army’ was located amongst civilians.  This had led to a situation that if Hamas had not been separated from the civilians, then the latter itself would become targets by default and not intentionally.

He added that the ANC had been of the view that the only manner in which to solve conflicts had been through multi-lateralism and that extremism could not be fought with extremism and that a political solution was needed. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict had a chequered past as the Israeli government had consistently indicated that Yasser Arafat who had been a moderate was not a credible partner and that this insistence by Israel had led many to question the bona fides of the Israeli government.

Adv Madaza stated that since the advent of the Bush administration, US foreign policy had been based on the premise of ‘you either with us or against us’ and as a result of this, terrorism and extremism had increased, although Bush would never admit it.  During the past eight years, George Bush had caused great damage to the world and his foreign policy had an impact on the Israeli government’s as it became more extremist and less moderate. Adv Madaza advised that the moderate voices should return to the centre of politics in Israel and Palestine and deal with the situation in a civilised manner.

Mr Ramgobin said that on behalf of the ethos that the South African people managed to capture in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and against the South African background, South Africans hoped and wished for peace and the well being of both the Palestinians and the State of Israel.

He noted that South Africa held no brief for any type of terrorism, whether it came from Hamas as an organization or state terrorism at the hands of Israel or any other types of terrorism. The majority of the Members of the Committee had come to the conclusion after their Israeli visit that the amount of oppression dished out against the Palestinians made Apartheid look like a school picnic.

Mr Ramgobin asked why Israel had disregarded the UN resolution of 9 January that called for an immediate ceasefire. He asked whether it should not be possible for the international community to demand a Nuremburg type trial for the Israeli government which through excessive and disproportionate usage of force inflicted great suffering on the residents of Gaza.

He added that it had become apparent that Israel had no regard for human rights as it had violated several in Gaza and that it seemed that Israel had forgotten about the disasters and inhumanities committed against Jews by the Nazis in the concentration camps. Israel had no right to deny the Palestinians’ access to the basic amenities of food, water and medicine. He also asked why Israel had continued to use phosphorous bombs against Palestinians.

Mr Francois Beukman (ANC) said that at the Polokwane Conference the ANC had adopted a resolution that expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people and called for a peaceful settlement and that South Africa would support efforts geared towards a settlement.

Mr Beukman added that during the Clinton Administration a deal had nearly been reached between the rival parties, but due to infighting the deal had not be signed.  He asked what would happen next and whether the Quartet responsible for mediation had been effective.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg said that Operation Cast Lead was directed against Hamas military infrastructure and not the civilian population of Gaza and that due to Israeli intelligence the IDF could pin point the military infrastructure that had to be targeted. In many cases these installations were frequented by civilians who had been used as human shields by Hamas against the IDF and that all IDF attacks had been preceded by Israel informing those Gaza residents that a strike was eminent.

He added that Adv Madaza had admitted that the State of Israel had dealt with extreme terrorism directed at it and that for year Hamas had fired rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. The situation had become unbearable and the Ambassador implored the ANC to imagine how it would react to constant attacks by one of its neighbours.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg stressed that after the Oslo Agreement and other agreements the Israelis had committed themselves to a peaceful and lasting solution as Hamas had tried on numerous occasions to derail the peace process by calling for the elimination of the State of Israel. He said that it had been true that a new phenomenon in the form of Hamas had taken root in the Middle East and that the Iranian Islamic Republic supplied Hamas with the necessary resources to attack the Israeli State. The radical Islamic doctrine preached by Iran sought to eliminate moderate governments in the Middle East and this campaign had been orchestrated in quite a public manner. The Israeli government had come to the conclusion that Hamas should be considered as a military wing of the Iranian Islamic Republic.

Ambassador Steinberg noted that it had been incorrect to state that terrorism and extremism only took root when President Bush came to power as it had been around for a long time and that it initially ended when the Peoples Liberation Organization (PLO) ceased its attacks Israel.

Ambassador Steinberg said that the Israelis wanted peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, but that it had been incorrect of Mr Ramgobin to equate the situation in Palestine as being worse then Apartheid and it could not be compared to the Holocaust either as he himself was a descendant of concentration camp survivors and deemed the statement as outrageous and unacceptable.

The Ambassador added that proportionality had not been considered as a problem for the IDF as it had been dealing with a ruthless adversary who did not distinguish between civilian and military targets and its main aim had been to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. He stressed that Israel did not target Palestinian civilians, but Hamas military installations. Israel was only defending its citizens and that it would be absurd for the IDF to respond by shelling the Gaza Strip as more innocent civilians would get harmed, hence the usage of technology that could pinpoint Hamas military installations.

The Israeli government supported a two-state solution and Israelis would like to live peacefully next to its Palestinian neighbours, but that Hamas had repeatedly called for a one-state solution that would see a Palestinian state rise out of the ruins of the State of Israel. He hoped fresh rounds of negotiations would commence soon and that it had been untrue that Israel had been using phosphorous bombs against Palestinian civilians.

Hamas had committed gross human rights violations by using civilians as human shields and that Israel had allowed humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. Hamas had been engaged in a propaganda war by claiming that Israel had prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. The Ambassador noted that Israel would comply and obey UN resolutions if they had been considered fair but the latest UN resolution had not been accepted by Israel as it was unfair towards Israel.

Mr Ben Skosana (IFP) said that he concurred with the Chairperson on the issue of the parliamentary delegation visit to Israel in that the treatment received had been very bad. He said that it would be prudent for the Ambassador to speak to his government about its attitude as it did not bode well for a balanced perspective.

Mr Skosana decried the loss of innocent lives in the conflict and said that Israel had to endorse the UN Security Council proposals. Israel had to open the humanitarian corridors as well as enable the protection of aid workers on both sides. There was a need to emphasize that Israel had to withdraw from Gaza and that the ambassador had indicated that Israel would only leave once its objectives had been achieved.

He added that any initiatives aimed at an immediate restart of the peace negotiations should be explored and that the Egyptian Initiative should be revisited. There was also a need to deal with the final status of Jerusalem and border as well as the return of the exiles, a great demand, agreed to in the Oslo accord. The issue of the reallocation of resources like water and the need to share these resources should also be discussed and as well as the Israeli definition of a two-state solution. He noted that that it seemed that the objective of the campaign had been to drive Palestinians out of Israel, with some Israeli’s even suggesting that Arab countries should take the remaining Palestinian population as exiles.

He asked what the role of the Quartet had been as it seemed that the Quartet had been quite helpless and fruitless and when Israel would allow foreign journalists into the Gaza Strip.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) said that the conflict between Palestine and Israel was a very old one and asked the Ambassador whether he thought the conflict would ever be resolved and how he viewed the next step forward. He added that that the disproportional use of military force had led to thousands more being killed in the Gaza Strip than in Israel. He doubted that the unsophisticated weapons used by Hamas had the capability to inflict much damage. He decried the deplorable humanitarian situation in Gaza and called on Israel to negotiate a truce and to stop destroying the infrastructure as it had been a major source of economic growth.

Mr Swart expressed the ACDP’s regret at Ambassador Segev-Steinberg‘s mistreatment at the hands of the Deputy Minister Hajaig and at the loss of innocent lives in both Israel and the Palestinian territories.  He said that the ACDP supported a lasting peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians and thanked the Ambassador for the presentation, especially on the human shield issue that related to Hamas and asked why Hamas had not renewed the ceasefire agreement.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza had been unacceptable and that the shelling of Gaza had become disturbing and unacceptable. It seemed that the 1, 5 million people living in Gaza lived in a concentration camp due to all the checkpoints, and land, sea and air blockades.

She added that the high number of civilians that had been killed had not been in proportion with that of Israeli civilians and that the continued shelling of ‘soft’ targets by the IDF should be stopped.

She noted that the Israeli refusal to allow foreign journalists into the Gaza Strip created suspicion about the actions of the IDF and that Israeli communiqués could not be trusted as it seemed that Israel had been hell bent on destroying Gaza. She stated it had been wrong of Israel to ignore the UN resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire and questioned the bona fides of the Israeli leadership.

Ms N Gxowa (ANC) said that she considered war to be barbaric and not the right method to solve conflicts. The IDF had been wrong to bomb ‘soft’ targets where civilians were, just because Hamas hid out there as they would also be targeted as being part of the military. She asked when Israel would leave the other occupied areas and asked the Ambassador why Israel felt so threatened by Iran.

Adv Madaza noted that he had not implied that pre-President Bush there had not been terrorism, but merely that the Bush foreign policy had led to more extremism and terrorism globally. Israel should help and negotiate with Fatah to reach a lasting peace.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) stated that Israel had used chemical weapons. Pieces of metal had been found where Israeli forces had carried out operations and the serial number showed that it had sourced weapons from the United States of America. The siege on Gaza had been an on-going act of aggression by Israel and Israel had destroyed several buildings that did not even belong to Hamas.

Mr Sibande asked how many check points Israel had set-up in Gaza. He said that the videos that the Ambassador had shown made no difference to him as it was not credible. Israel should allow foreign journalists and humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel had no evidence to prove its theories and the Palestinians stood no chance against the weaponry supplied to Israel by China and the USA. Mr Sibande suggested that Israel had made itself guilty of ethnic cleansing.

He added that the rise of Israeli settlers had led to renewed anger amongst Palestinians that considered this as an act of aggression. Israel had been trying to consolidate its power against the backdrop of Palestinian suffering. The erection of the Apartheid style wall to divide Israel from Palestine had been inhumane. He asked what Israel’s relationship had been like with its Arab neighbours.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg replied that Israeli would welcome another parliamentary delegation and that his government was ready for a ceasefire agreement only if Hamas stopped its constant shelling of Israeli towns and cities. Israel had not prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. When Israel withdrew in 2005, it had made it clear that no reoccupation would happen and that Operation Cast Lead had been directed at Hamas and not Palestinian civilians. Israel would return to negotiations with the elected government of the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. He hoped that the Egyptian mediation would pay dividends as Hamas had derailed a very successful negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg added that Israel had always shared its resources with the Palestinians and that it would continue to do so, once the Palestinian State came into existence. History had showed that Israel had been committed in the resettlement of its citizens and that it should not thus be seen as a major stumbling block.

He stated that Israel had decided to erect the wall to protect Israelis from suicide bombers. It could not be considered a wall as most it consisted of a fence and that due to this, the number of suicide attacks had decreased to almost nought.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg further stressed that Israel had not imposed a media black-out as there had been complete coverage of the war by the local Gazan population as seen on Al Jazeera. The rationale behind the prevention of foreign journalists into Gaza had been taken as the IDF could not secure their safety. Israel would get blamed if they got hurt or worse still, killed.

He added that economic and the further allocation of resources would only be agreed on when the final status of the region had been discussed. Israel had no intention of kicking the Palestinians out of their territories as it wanted to live peacefully next to a Palestinian State. Each and every conflict had a solution as illustrated by Israel’s peaceful existence with Egypt. However, Israel needed a willing partner that recognised the sovereignty and right of the State of Israel to exist. South Africa should be more objective. Israel had yet to hear South Africa condemn the inflammatory statements made by Hamas and Iran that called for the elimination of the Israeli State.

On the issue of the disproportionate use of force, the Ambassador noted that it had been a very difficult dilemma. Israelis faced several rocket attacks every day and Israel had been left without any other option but to defend itself against militant Muslim fundamentalists that had committed acts of aggression against Israel for eight years. He said that no country in the world would allow such acts of aggression against it. Hamas had been in violation of international law as it made use of civilians to act as human shields. Israel could thus not be blamed if innocent Palestinians got hurt as the military offensive was against Hamas military installations.

Ambassador Segev-Steinberg added that Hamas followed an extreme religious ideology, with a covenant that called for the complete destruction of the State of Israel. Iran had provided funds and weapons to Hamas. The Israeli government had expressed the hope that Hamas would realise that acts of terrorism and aggression would not be tolerated, nor should it be considered as an alternative to peaceful negotiations. The Rafah passage had been included in the agreement signed in 2005 when Israel pulled out of Gaza, but that it subsequently fell under Hamas control during the 2007 coup when it decided to expel all EU observers from the passage and end Egyptian control over it.

He noted that Gaza was the most condensed area in the world and that Israel tried to avoid hitting civilians, but that this had been hampered as Hamas used human shields and used ‘soft ‘targets as military bases. Gaza was neither a prison, nor a concentration camp. Gaza had the opportunity to be a vibrant city, but due to the persecution against Fatah, Hamas had control of the territory.

The Ambassador said that it had been a fallacy that Hamas used primitive weapons as the rockets and other weapons of war used by Hamas had become more sophisticated and had the capabilities of reaching and causing great destruction in Israel.  These rockets and weapons had been obtained from Iran and smuggled into Gaza via underground tunnels that ran from Egypt into Gaza.

Ambassador Steinberg noted that Israel had never had a problem with Iran as it did not even share a border with it. The religious fundamentalist influence it commanded in the region had been a major cause of concern. He denied that Israel had used biological warfare against the Palestinians. Also, Israel had considered Fatah a partner in the peace process.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Sithole said that it had been unfair and inconsiderate of the Ambassador to criticise South Africa’s position and foreign policy. The ANC-led government would continue to show solidarity with oppressed people all over the world. He disagreed with the Ambassador’s responses as Palestinians had been subjected to acts much worse than what the Apartheid regime had committed. It had been evident in the treatment of Palestinians such as not being able to drive a car. He said that the racial discrimination had to stop and asked the Ambassador to convey the Committee’s stance.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.