As your press statement refers to United Nations Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1515 it
is relevant to examine them.. Resolution 338 dated during the Yom Kippur War called on the parties to implement resolution
242 and resolution 1515 calls on the parties to implement the Road Map. The key resolution is 242 and obviously the most reliable
sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played the main roles in drafting it, namely British Ambassador
to the UN, Lord Caradon, American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg and former US Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs, Eugene Rostow. In an article in The New Republic, "Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,"
(Oct. 21, 1991) Rostow wrote "... Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation
Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called 'secure and recognized' boundaries, agreed to by
the parties. ".
In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel
return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just
the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice
lines. That's why I didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."
As I believe South Africa is genuinely
interested in promoting a peaceful solution, I would have expected that instead of pushing the parties further apart by harsh
criticism of Israel, South Africa
would have urged the Palestinians to accept Israel's
call to come to the negotiating table, where all the aims and claims of the parties will be hammered out. Setting preconditions
to negotiations negates the very concept of negotiation.
And again, as an early anti-apartheid activist I find your reference to Israeli activities
being reminiscent of apartheid especially hurtful. A serious study will convince any impartial observer, that allegations
of a similarity between the old South Africa’s
apartheid regime and the Israeli system are spurious. It is unworthy of the South African government to adopt these false
propagandistic slogans that are rejected by all who value moral integrity.
South Africans know better than anyone else that
apartheid was entrenched in the law and strictly enforced, whereas in stark contrast, Israel s Declaration of Independence specifically ensures complete equality of
social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or gender. A visit to any Israeli hospital,
where Arab and Jewish doctors and patients coexist in complete harmony will convince the harshest critic of the absurdity
of likening Israel to the despised apartheid
regime. For more details see http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id32.html
International Law http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id162.html
The Occupation http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id91.html
The Six-Day War & Resolution 242 http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id127.html
& South Africa http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id87.html
of the South African government's media statement
South Africa’s response
to latest Israeli settlement activities in East Jerusalem
South African government expresses its concern at the latest round of Israeli settlement activities in East Jerusalem and
registers its condemnation of Israel’s approval of 900 new settlement
units in the settlement of Gilo, south of East Jerusalem. South
Africa is aware of the statements of the Palestinian leadership that this settlement expansion on the part of Israel
will result in an increase in the Israeli settler population over the next two years that will exceed the previous two.
South Africa takes note of the statements by United States President Barack Obama who stated
that: "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's
security, it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbours. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way
that could end up being very dangerous.” We also take cognisance of the
statements of the European Union presidency which said that: "If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve
the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.”
South Africa maintains that these attempts by Israel
to create facts on the ground imperils attempts to achieve a negotiated solution to the conflict, namely that of two states,
Israel and Palestine
existing side by side in peace within internationally recognised borders. South Africa
emphasises that the issue of Jerusalem is one of the final status issues that needs to be part
of a negotiated solution to the conflict in the Middle East.
actions on the part of Israel are in opposition
to the will of the international community as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1515 as well
as the Arab Peace Initiative. We condemn the fact that Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem is coupled with Israel’s campaign to evict and displace the original
Palestinian residents from the City.
South Africa stresses that these actions on the part of Israel jeopardise the prospects of resuming peace talks aimed at arriving at a
final settlement to the conflict. South Africa is deeply concerned that
these activities by Israel will only serve
only to deepen the cycle of violence in the region. As an occupying power, Israel
has specific and clear obligations under international law.
call upon the Israeli government to cease their activities that are reminiscent of apartheid forced removals and resume negotiations
more information contact Chief Director for Public Diplomacy, Saul Kgomotso Molobi on 082 940 1647.
of International Relations and Cooperation
Bag x 152