Honorary colleague of Afran

Speaking at the UN this week, President Jacob Zuma said he supported the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) bid for full membership of the UN for a Palestine state; which will be proposed in the speech by PA president Mahmoud Abbas on Friday, 23 September. After two decades of fruitless negotiations with Israel (whilst the latter continued building illegal settlements on Palestinian land, violently displacing Palestinians and stealing their resources), the PA turned its attention to getting international recognition within the UN.

 The proposed Palestinian state

Before commenting on South Africa’s position, it is necessary to look at the nature of the PA’s proposal and the circumstances leading up to it.

The United Nations partitioned British Mandate Palestine in 1947 into a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”. At the time, the UN was not representative of world opinion. Most African states, for example, were still colonised and not members. Today, the UN Security Council continues this pattern of allowing a handful of countries to make decisions on behalf of the rest of the world.

 The UN’s Resolution 181 split Palestine, offering 45 percent to Palestinians, and 55 percent to Jews. This, despite the fact that the Jewish population was 30 percent of the total population, owning seven percent of the land. A key problem of this plan was that the Palestinians were not consulted.

Israel was established in May 1948 and within a few months it had taken over 78 percent of Palestine. Following the 1967 war, Israel occupied the other 22 percent, which it still occupies. Through the construction of illegal colonies and the virtual annexation of land within that 22 percent, Palestinians now have access to only 12 percent of what was Mandate Palestine. These tiny bits of territory are further marred by an intricate matrix of Israeli controls which are imposed by an oppressive military regime that is currently in violation of scores of international humanitarian laws, and has committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 In the West Bank, Israel designed a web of bantustans physically cut off from each other by the illegal settlement infrastructure, and controlled by a brutal military. These are further constricted by depopulated military zones, an illegal apartheid wall which will stretch for 810 kilometres, and over 600 checkpoints which prevent free Palestinian movement and normal functioning of the population.

 Trade, economic activity, access to medical care and natural population growth are thus made impossible by the occupation. Furthermore, Israel also ensures it controls water located in Palestinian areas, charging Palestinians exorbitant amounts for the resource while Israelis pay much less, and restricting Palestinian access to water to a fraction of what Israelis are allowed to use.

 Abbas will ask the UN for 22 percent of Mandate Palestine, a proposal that has already been vociferously opposed by Israel and the US, and supported by a number of countries such as South Africa. Yet the request is for something that mimics a state. The ‘state’ that could be formed if the US does not veto the proposal (which is highly unlikely) will be a symbolic state. It will not have sovereignty over its territory, will not be able to guarantee the security of its people, will not have an independent economy, and will not have control over its natural resources, air space and coast.

 That is why a loud cacophony of voices from the global Palestine solidarity movement is echoing the position of the Palestinian Boycott, divestment and sanctions National Committee (BNC), which consists of over 200 Palestinian civil society organisations.

They argue that none of Israel’s violations will change with a new UN declaration. Scores of UN resolutions over the past six decades, the Geneva Conventions and international law have not succeeded in curbing Israel’s violent ethnic cleansing and state terrorism. Because of an absence of a will by the international community to implement international law, especially from the undemocratic UNSC, land theft, occupation, military rule, torture, extra-judicial assassinations, detentions, and a general violation of the human rights of Palestinians continues unabated. Of the more than 80 instances of the US using its veto, more than half were used to support Israel, despite its grave violations of international law.

PA represents a minority

The PA’s bid will not serve the interests of peace and security in the region. It is clear that most Israelis are interested, at most, in a Palestinian bantustan that will be completely beholden to and dependent on Israel, a ‘solution’ which Palestinians will never accept.

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (which has ‘observer entity’ status at the UN, and is recognised by the UN as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) is the only Palestinian organisation with the potential to represent all Palestinian voices, representing also the six million Palestinian refugees and the 1.6 million Palestinians inside Israel.

Success for the PA’s bid will usurp the PLO’s position. And whilst the PLO itself is flagging, it remains the only Palestinian grouping with the capacity to unify and argue for the right to true Palestinian self determination.

The South African position

South Africa has been cast into a situation where it has to choose between supporting a Palestinian proposal at the UN, or supporting the Israeli-American mafia which has been trying to intimidate states into opposing the Palestinian bid. For a country – and a ruling party – which have had good relations with the Palestinian people for decades, the question seems a no-brainer: the South African government simply cannot vote against the Palestinian request, as the president made clear. Furthermore, for a country that has consistently supported UN reform to support – in an issue such as this – the veto of the US is unthinkable. However, it is crucial that the ANC and the government be more incisive in their analysis and fully appreciate the nature of the proposal they will support.

The government has been unable to critically to assess the changing face of Palestinian politics. At the centre of this error is South Africa’s failure to acknowledge and engage with the multitude of Palestinian voices – political parties and civil society. By focusing solely on its relationship with the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, South Africa has boxed itself into a corner. This is especially the case because Mahmoud Abbas continues to attempt to negotiate with Israel behind-the-scenes, even trying to make a deal on Wednesday, 21 September, so that he could withdraw the statehood request.

 If our government genuinely intends to make good on its claim of support for the Palestinian people (rather than one faction), then it must use this impasse as an opportunity for some introspection. It must refine its position and redefine the South African-Palestinian partnership.

How can the ANC, which fought hard against apartheid in South Africa, reconcile lending its support to the PA’s bantustan solution? Haven’t the Palestinians earned the right to ‘One person, One vote’ in a unitary state in the same way that South Africans did?

The South African government should re-ignite its long-standing relationship with all the components of the PLO, and help make that organisation – which is currently a shadow of its former self – a truly representative organ of the Palestinian people. While it might be too late to reconsider what its support of the statehood bid really means, the South African government must begin to address how it can concretely support the Palestinian struggle for justice and self-determination. Its role in this regard should be based on two pillars:

supporting initiatives which seek to revive and reform the PLO and make it a structure that represents all Palestinian people and all their political articulations, and,

supporting the call by a wide range of Palestinian civil and political society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), and the isolation of the Israeli apartheid state.

BDS will continue growing whatever the outcomes at the UN. And it remains the movement most able to move beyond the impasse between Palestinians and Israelis and towards a just solution. What can be more compelling than employing the same strategy that led South Africa to victory over our form of apartheid?

 Ultimately, these two contributions can ensure that South Africa makes a lasting and positive contribution to justice and peace in the Middle East.