A SECOND LOOK
Firoz Osman
At the end of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis facilitated by South Africa at the Spier Estate outside Cape Town, Saeb Erakat and Yossi Beilin wrote that “it was an inspiring window into the South African experience of negotiated transition and replete with lessons that we believe are relevant for our own predicament” (“SA model gives Palestine hope”, January 25).
It must be noted that there were no American or Israeli government representatives present, although both welcomed the initiative. While the immediate objective is to end the violence, renew contact between the peace camps and develop a climate of mutual trust, the fundamental issues remain the same.
These include the status of Jerusalem, return of the refugees, the dismantling of illegal settlements, and borders comprising an independent Palestinian state.
These crucial issues were deferred to the “final status” talks. The Oslo Accord was a humiliating letdown and an instrument of surrender by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA).
It promised Arafat no more than municipal control of Palestinian areas: Israel will maintain most of its settlements, and control land, water, security and foreign policy.
The 22% of original Palestine, which has been carved into 220 islets, or Bantustans, administered on behalf of the Israelis by the corrupt PA, is reluctantly on offer. Is this the type of state Palestinians have been striving for in the past 50 years?
President George Bush recently claimed that a Palestinian state has “always been part of the American vision”. Ariel Sharon has accepted the right of the Palestinians to a state. But, as stated by Palestinian leader Dr Mustafa Barghouthi, the Palestinians struggle, not for any state, but a fair and just one.
A state intended by Israel and the US will have no borders with Jordan and Egypt, will be surrounded by Israel from all sides, will be demilitarised and Israel will control its airspace.
This “Palestinian state” will be no more a state than South African Bantustans in the darkest days of apartheid. It will be the ultimate camouflage for the ongoing occupation.
South Africa cannot allow its reputation and moral high ground of its peaceful transition to a democratic state to be used to prolong the suffering of the Palestinians.
The principles governing justice should be the same everywhere. South African liberation groups unequivocally rejected the bantustanisation of South Africa, because it was inimical to justice. Similarly, it rejected the concept of a separate Afrikaner homeland.
It is imperative that South Africa utilise its vast experience and commitment to achieve justice as a prerequisite to peace in the Middle East.
Dr Firoz Osman is the secretary of the Media Review Network, an advocacy group based in Pretoria