Committee Reports on Palestine Symposium & Oversight Visit to Durban; Committee Programme

Meeting report

Opening Statements
The Chairperson asked that, as this was the last meeting for the year, the Committee observe a moment of prayer to thank God for the year that the Committee was given. He hoped Members would meet each other in good health next year.

Committee Report on the Symposium on Palestine
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had decided the previous week that it needed time to interrogate the report. The ANC had also submitted a proposal with certain resolutions that it wanted to include in the report. He had also received a proposal from the ACDP. He asked if the Committee wanted to engage on the resolutions proposed in the two submissions now. He had not received submissions from the IFP, DA and COPE. These parties were not compelled to submit proposals so that was fine.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) proposed that the Committee deliberate on the report first and then look at the proposals made by the ANC and ACDP. This was agreed to.

Point 1, 2, 3, and 4
The Chairperson noted minor corrections. 

Point 5
The Chairperson noted that the first line of Point 5, which represented the position of Palestine had to be deleted because it was only an ambassador of Palestine that could speak to the state's position.

He noted the Members' approval.

Point 6, 7, and 8
No changes were made.

Point 9
The Chairperson suggested that “Palestine” be amended to, “State of Palestine”.

He noted the Committee's approval.

Point 10
Mr K Mubu (DA) suggested that the point should state that both sides (Israel and Palestine) want two states living side by side, but had different views on how the two states were to be achieved.

The Chairperson noted that the wording did not change the essence of the sentence.

Point 11 and 12
The Chairperson stated that there had been a few people that had questioned him about the Committee's view on the Palestinian issue. Some said that it was biased towards Palestine, others thought it was biased towards Israel. It was his view that everybody in the country had a strong view on the Palestine/Israel issue.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said the symposium was very informative as the Committee had a great opportunity to hear both sides. It seemed that the gap between what the two states wanted, was getting wider, which was very concerning. The issues had not yet been condensed into one focus area. The first rule of negotiation was to be able to compromise and listen to each state's view. The two states were not listening to each other. This was a problem. People also seemed to think that the Committee was picking sides. The Committee had to build on the work done in the symposium, and it had to focus on reconciling both parties without leaning towards one. He did not think it would help the situation between the two states, if the Committee chose one side.

Ms Dudley thought that prior to the symposium, the Committee had not been very open to hearing both sides of the story. However, during the symposium she could not fault anyone. At the end, it all came together. She thought that the matter could only move forward once people felt less threatened. The symposium helped people feel that they were not the enemy, and that they could express their point of view. She felt that up until that point, the Committee had managed to make Israel the enemy. Whatever the Committee decided to say, it had to reflect the slight shift in the Committee's position. The Committee had to be a good influence on the two states. The report had to reflect the slight shift in the Committee's position in terms of the Committee now wanting to remove itself from the passionate debate surrounding the matter because it was not “their issue”. The Committee had to help the situation by putting itself in a position where it was non-biased.

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) wondered when the Committee was going to finalise the resolutions.

Ms Dudley proposed that the Committee pass the report, as she was happy with it.

The Chairperson noted the proposal to adopt the report. But, before the Committee could do that, they had to keep in mind that whatever resolutions they adopted would have to be included in the report as recommendations. The Committee should proceed with deliberating on the report.

The Chairperson noted that there seemed to be Christian fundamentalist views on Palestine and some people were emotional about it for that reason. There were political issues, which people were emotional about. There were also religious and cultural issues that were broader than even those of the Christian fundamentalist. The interesting thing about it was that most people throughout the world that had been victims of colonialism had strong views about this issue because of their own experiences. People had become emotional about this matter for various reasons. So, when the Committee engaged on the matter, they had to engage on the basis that there were many diverse views. Parliament was a political institute and there was no way that it was going to be neutral on this matter. Most political parties had strong views on the matter. Parliament could not be neutral about an issue that involved values and principles. South Africa's Constitution should form the basis of the Committee’s opinion on the matter.

Mr Sulliman proposed that the Chairperson should receive inputs from each political party.

Ms Dudley noted that the Committee had only the ANC and ACDP's inputs. It was her view that if the Committee had to strip away everything contentious and come down to what it could agree on, the report would read something like “it calls on the Palestinian and Israeli leadership to return to the negotiating table without pre-conditions so that a genuine and lasting solution could be found, to gather facts from all sides, and further it equip Parliament to engage meaningfully and effectively by visiting both Palestine and Israel, and partnering with organisations in those areas that are working for peace”. Surely, this was a better way to start?

The Chairperson stated that he personally disagreed with what she said. He thought the issue had to look at what the principles of the matter were, which had to be identified through South Africa's Constitution. The Committee had to look at South Africa's foreign policy. It was like Mr Mokgalapa has said in previous meetings – the foreign policy had to be consistent, predictable, and based on the principles stipulated in the Constitution. The Committee needed to move forward on such a serious issue that had divided the world. The Committee tended to shy away from such debates and discussions regarding the very principles that the country held so dear. He noted that what Ms Dudley had stated was exactly what the Israeli ambassador had said and he wondered if she was being genuine in wanting to find common ground. On the other hand, the Palestinians were saying something different. There were a lot of things happening – chief amongst them, the continual settlement expansion. There was one thing the entire Committee agreed on that was not up for debate; this was the Constitution. If the Committee wanted to make any valuable contribution to the debate, then they had to use South Africa's Constitution. The Constitution should be the measuring rod for what the Committee believed in. He wanted to hear the views of the other parties.
 
Ms Dudley replied that she was proposing that the Committee bring the issue down to a common denominator. If the Committee's point was to “win” where someone was right and other was wrong, then it would be fine. If the Committee's goal was to try to move people closer together to find each other, then Members had to look at the matter from that point of view. It was not about getting your own passionate point of view across; it was about helping the two parties move together. It did not seem right to “bash” other countries with the Constitution. The Committee was not bashing other countries like Iran, Syria and Zimbabwe with the Constitution.

The Chairperson agreed that it was not always about the principles of the matter; sometimes the material conditions dictated that the Committee should act differently. He asked if Members could agree on a deadline for all parties to submit their submissions. He proposed 14 December 2011, and noted the Members’ approval. The submissions would be dealt with next year when the Members returned to Parliament. This would give Members plenty of time to interrogate the submissions.

Mr Sulliman asked what would happen with parties that did not want to choose sides and, therefore, would not submit.

The Chairperson asked that parties submit something anyway. The request was for all parties to make a submission. Ultimately, all Members were going to take part in the discussions and all parties had a view on the matter; none of the parties was neutral.

The Chairperson noted the Committee agreed that all parties should make a submission. 

Committee Report on Oversight Visit to Durban
The Chairperson said he was unsure whether the trip could be referred to as “oversight”.

Ms R Magau (ANC) agreed saying that the “state protocol lounge” or “VIP lounge” had been visited but there had not been a very welcoming ambience.

Mr K Mubu (DA) said that what Ms Magau had said should be included in the Conclusion of the report.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to capture what the Members had said in the Conclusion.

The Chairperson reminded Members that some of the information was captured in the report's Observations.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) said she did not join the Committee on the trip but she wondered if it would make sense to include in the report what the Committee was going to do about it.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) added that the overall impression was not good and it was part of last year's mandate for the Committee to observe what was happening in these state protocol lounges. This was part of the Committee's mandate; therefore, they could forward the information to the relevant authorities.

Mr Mubu said the report captured what had happened and he was happy with the report.

The Chairperson suggested the Committee make a commitment to take up the matter with the Department of International Relations and Co-operation. If the matter was included in the Recommendations then the report would go to the House for adoption, in which case it would become the decision of Parliament. Then the Department would have a legal obligation in terms of the Recommendations flowing from the decision of Parliament. Alternatively, the Committee itself could raise the issues with the Department. The report would have to go to the House in any case. It just depended on whether it was “noted” or adopted.

Mr Mubu said the report would have to go through the House but there was nothing stopping the Committee from engaging with the Department.

The Chairperson instructed the Committee Secretary to make the relevant changes to the Recommendations in the report. He asked if the Committee adopted the report with the changes.

Mr Mubu moved for the adoption. Ms Magau seconded the adoption. The report was adopted with amendments.

Committee Programme for 2012
The Chairperson said Members needed to deliberate on the programme as he wanted the Committee “to hit the ground running” as soon as Parliament re-opened. The proposed programme came from the operational plan that the Committee made at the beginning of 2011. The Committee Programme included issues left over from that operational plan; for example, the meeting with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) still had to take place. It had not taken place this year due to scheduling conflicts.

Mr Mubu suggested that the programme include a briefing on the COP 17 outcomes.

The Chairperson agreed that a slot would be found in the programme for this. He gave special thanks to the committee secretary, the committee researcher and other committee support staff for their hard work and dedication this year.

The Chairperson noted that the programme was adopted with amendments.

Committee's Upcoming Oversight Visit to the United States and Cuba
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the House Chairperson has approved the Committee's visit to the US and Cuba. He was only awaiting written confirmation of the approval. However, approval for the entire Committee had not been given as the budget would have been approximately R2.1 million. Oversight was important, but not at such an exorbitant cost. After speaking to the House Chairperson, it was decided that seven Members would be included in the delegation and it would include as many parties as possible.

Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted the minutes of 23 October and 8 November 2011 with minor amendments.

 The meeting was adjourned.