Justice and Reconciliation Best Practices from South Africa: Lessons Learned to the Internal Palestinian Split
Presented by Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, Head of Policy and Analysis Programme at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, South Africa, the event brought together Mr. Hans Heyn, Head of the KAS Office, Palestinian Territories, as well as a select number of members of the legal community, academics, and representatives of civil society organisations and international bodies
.
Mr. Heyn made a briefing note about KAS. Based in Ramallah, KAS is a German organisation that supports the question of Palestine and pays special attention to human rights. KAS has other branches across the Middle East, including in Amman and Cairo. Mr. Heyn also introduced the speaker and topic of the legal encounter.
Mr. Hofmeyr asserted he was both happy and grateful to be allowed an opportunity to share some of his ideas and experience on how South Africa transitioned to democratic governance. Palestine can benefit from South Africa’s experience as well. Mr. Hofmeyr expressed his willingness to listen and learn from Palestinian experience, particularly in relation to the tragic events which resulted from the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip. According to Mr. Hofmeyr, his city of Cape Town houses the largest Muslim community in South Africa. The city was greatly affected by the human tragedy caused by racial discrimination. The reason why South African academics are interested in the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict is apartheid. The term is commonly used to characterise Israeli policies vis-à-vis the Palestinian people. To this avail, supporters of the Palestinian cause have frequently made reference to apartheid over the past years.
In spite of similarities between the South African and Palestinian experiences, the history and context of national struggles are not the same. In South Africa, the brutal apartheid regime encroached on human rights and dignity. Confrontation of apartheid took on a particular character. It is hard to come up with an overall comparison of both experiences, however. In Palestine, the conflict is different from that of South Africa. Because they did not live the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, commentators have developed an external view. To solve any conflict, a solution needs to generate from internal forces, using their own methods. External mechanisms and visions should be avoided. The key objective is to create a society that never falls back into conflict. Following South Africa’s political transition in the 1990s, some key negotiators in transition talks were invited to visit Palestine with a view to contribute to the peace process. To reach an agreement and consensus, South African negotiators concluded that conciliation should be local and supported by trust and confidence in national processes and institutions.
As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, Mr. Hofmeyr believed that it was too early to talk about transitional justice in Palestine. To attain transitional justice, a peaceful settlement will have to be reached first. The basic tenet of transitional justice is to support victims and punish persons who perpetrated crimes against these persons. Victims are the primary beneficiaries of transitional justice. According to Mr. Hofmeyr, the current situation between parties to the conflict in Palestine is now close to reaching a settlement.
Mr. Hofmeyr addressed factors that facilitated a shift to transitional justice in South Africa. External conditions, which were beyond control of opposition parties, made the continued armed hostilities so costly both morally and materially. By the end of 1980s, a paradigmatic shift affected world order, including fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, also greatly impacting on the political arena in South Africa. Although they had not been so significant in years leading to the democratic transition in South Africa, both fragmentation and division affected parties to the conflict in South Africa. All key political parties consented to the objective of negotiations; to establish a unified, democratic, nonracist state. More importantly, the wise leadership of both parties to the conflict were capable of grabbing the historical opportunity and achieve peace. Both former Presidents Frederik W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela were strong enough and capable of assessing the changing international context. They continued the negotiation process and worked towards setting an interim constitution. This has ultimately been the Constitution of South Africa.
The legal encounter was concluded with a set of recommendations. In the ensuing discussion, participants made several comments. Most importantly, the only way to materialise transitional justice is to safeguard victims’ rights and hold wrongdoers to account. If a crime is confessed, a general pardon should be issued through conciliation committees and a permanent settlement.
The Institute of Law Organises a Legal Encounter on
Justice and Reconciliation Best Practices from South Africa: Lessons Learned to the Internal Palestinian Split
In partnership with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), the Institute of Law (IoL) of Birzeit University, Gaza Office, held on 14 October 2014 a legal encounter on Justice and Reconciliation Best Practices from South Africa: Lessons Learned to the Internal Palestinian Split. Presented by Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, Head of Policy and Analysis Programme at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, South Africa, the event brought together Mr. Hans Heyn, Head of the KAS Office, Palestinian Territories, as well as a select number of members of the legal community, academics, and representatives of civil society organisations and international bodies.
Mr. Heyn made a briefing note about KAS. Based in Ramallah, KAS is a German organisation that supports the question of Palestine and pays special attention to human rights. KAS has other branches across the Middle East, including in Amman and Cairo. Mr. Heyn also introduced the speaker and topic of the legal encounter.
Mr. Hofmeyr asserted he was both happy and grateful to be allowed an opportunity to share some of his ideas and experience on how South Africa transitioned to democratic governance. Palestine can benefit from South Africa’s experience as well. Mr. Hofmeyr expressed his willingness to listen and learn from Palestinian experience, particularly in relation to the tragic events which resulted from the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip. According to Mr. Hofmeyr, his city of Cape Town houses the largest Muslim community in South Africa. The city was greatly affected by the human tragedy caused by racial discrimination. The reason why South African academics are interested in the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict is apartheid. The term is commonly used to characterise Israeli policies vis-à-vis the Palestinian people. To this avail, supporters of the Palestinian cause have frequently made reference to apartheid over the past years.
In spite of similarities between the South African and Palestinian experiences, the history and context of national struggles are not the same. In South Africa, the brutal apartheid regime encroached on human rights and dignity. Confrontation of apartheid took on a particular character. It is hard to come up with an overall comparison of both experiences, however. In Palestine, the conflict is different from that of South Africa. Because they did not live the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, commentators have developed an external view. To solve any conflict, a solution needs to generate from internal forces, using their own methods. External mechanisms and visions should be avoided. The key objective is to create a society that never falls back into conflict. Following South Africa’s political transition in the 1990s, some key negotiators in transition talks were invited to visit Palestine with a view to contribute to the peace process. To reach an agreement and consensus, South African negotiators concluded that conciliation should be local and supported by trust and confidence in national processes and institutions.
As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, Mr. Hofmeyr believed that it was too early to talk about transitional justice in Palestine. To attain transitional justice, a peaceful settlement will have to be reached first. The basic tenet of transitional justice is to support victims and punish persons who perpetrated crimes against these persons. Victims are the primary beneficiaries of transitional justice. According to Mr. Hofmeyr, the current situation between parties to the conflict in Palestine is now close to reaching a settlement.
Mr. Hofmeyr addressed factors that facilitated a shift to transitional justice in South Africa. External conditions, which were beyond control of opposition parties, made the continued armed hostilities so costly both morally and materially. By the end of 1980s, a paradigmatic shift affected world order, including fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, also greatly impacting on the political arena in South Africa. Although they had not been so significant in years leading to the democratic transition in South Africa, both fragmentation and division affected parties to the conflict in South Africa. All key political parties consented to the objective of negotiations; to establish a unified, democratic, nonracist state. More importantly, the wise leadership of both parties to the conflict were capable of grabbing the historical opportunity and achieve peace. Both former Presidents Frederik W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela were strong enough and capable of assessing the changing international context. They continued the negotiation process and worked towards setting an interim constitution. This has ultimately been the Constitution of South Africa.
The legal encounter was concluded with a set of recommendations. In the ensuing discussion, participants made several comments. Most importantly, the only way to materialise transitional justice is to safeguard victims’ rights and hold wrongdoers to account. If a crime is confessed, a general pardon should be issued through conciliation committees and a permanent settlement.
Speakers
1. Mr. Jan Hofmeyr
2. Mr. Hans Heyn
Venue
Gaza
Date
2014-10-14
