Rima Khalaf - Head of UN ESCWA 2010 - 2017 HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur.

The and apartheid in the same sentence and you are stepping into a

political minefield -- put the words Israel and apartheid in the same

sentence. Write a UN report and accused Israel of systematically

implementing apartheid policies, well, you can be sure that will be a

diplomatic explosion. My guest today, Rima Khalaf, did just that

and properly resign from her UN post when the Secretary General refused

to accept her work. Her motives have been widely questioned. So let's ask

are, what were they? -- let's ask her.

Pleasure to be here. Now that the dust has settled for a few weeks on

this episode of you, the report you commissioned on Israel and

apartheid, you have had some time to reflect on it all. Do you have

regrets about the way you handled it? No, actually, not at all. First

let me explain that I did not commission the report, because I

wanted to commission a report. ESCWA, or United Nations Economic

and Social Commission for Western Asia, is an intergovernmental body.

We and intergovernmental agency. And we just implement what a member

state ask us to do, member states, which are the 18 Arab member states

of ESCWA, they requested us to commission a report to see whether

Israel is actually imposing and apartheid regime on the Palestinian

people. In way of background, Israel has pursued segregation and racial

discrimination policies. In that, this is not disputable, because even

Israel doesn't deny the policies that it has implemented in the West

Bank on the occupied Palestinian people, and some of the policies in

Israel itself. I mean, in the West Bank, you have a dual legal system,

one that applies to Jewish settlers and one that applies to the

Palestinian inhabitants of the occupied territories. Yes, OK, but

to use the word apartheid, that rings a whole heap of emotional

issues, connected, of course, to the regime established in South Africa

by whites, based upon a racial premise. Now, did not strike you

that, as you say, the 18 nations who wanted you to write this report, and

who said we want YouTube focus on the apartheid analogy, these were

doyens of human rights standards, like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria,

Iraq. Bahrain. Did not strike you that there might be something

misguided about this entire enterprise? Well, the countries that

you named did not write the report. No, they asked you. As you have just

said to me, they asked you to do it. They asked us to check whether this

is the case or not. Did you think for one second they didn't already

believe they knew the answer? No, no. Because it was a debate among

member states. Some did believe that and some didn't. So they said we

wanted ESCWA to commission a report. Now, regardless of the motives, our

duty as a UN agency was to look for the best experts in the field.

Experts who are into international law and human rights law, and who

also know the region. So from that point on, neither the member states

nor ESCWA had anything to do with findings of the report. Related to

the experts. So you felt the best expert to lead the writing of this

report was the American legal scholar Richard Falk? He is, as you

know, an expert in international law and human rights law. I do know him,

because he has been on HARDtalk and I know his record. And I know the

kinds of things he has written which include commentary on, quote,

Israel's genocidal tendencies. Now, let's look at the substance that

Richard wrote. I mean, he didn't invent laws and say the law in

Israel is so-and-so. These are the laws in Israel. When Richard Falk

said that there is a UN legal system applied in -- dual legal system

applied in the West Bank, there is a dual legal system. So instead of

attacking Richard Falk, who is, in my opinion, a very respected

international jurist, let's look at the substance. If you disagree with

anything the report, bring it up. Forgive me, you said earlier, he

said nobody in the process of commissioning this report, nobody

was prejudging the issue. You chose as your lead author a man who is

highly controversial, because of the things he has said about Israel in

the past, including, and I'm quoting Richard Falk directly, Israel is

slouching towards a Palestinian Holocaust. Those are his words. You

chose him. You chose him to be the author. It was clear what was in

your mind. Before I chose him, members of the human rights Council

chose him as a special raconteur, so he has the respect of many. I

understand, that meant the state like the US do not like Richard

Falk. But what I am saying is let's stop focusing on the messenger,

let's focus on the message. We are saying we have a system of

apartheid. At least, at minimum, we have is system of segregation and

discrimination. We should focus on this. We cannot live with such a

system on the 21st century. And I still... By the way, before I said

that I am not willing to pull the report of our website, I really

asked our colleagues, show me one floor, one fault, and I am willing

to take it off our website. But so far, I have read so many

commentators on the report, not one. The only commentary I read or heard

was defamation focusing on Richard, focusing on me, focusing on why the

report... Tell me what is wrong with the report. Well, I want to focus on

the substance of the report, and on this insistence that there is, in

legal, substantial terms, a direct comparison between Israel and the

established norms of what represents apartheid. And I am struggling. I

mean, for example, in Israel, I see no race classification act, I see no

ban on mixed marriages, I see no group areas act, no pass laws, these

are all fundamental pillars of South Africa's implementation of

apartheid. The reference, in order to determine whether you have an

apartheid regime or not, you have to go to the apartheid convention.

Anti-apartheid convention has a very clear definition of what will be

considered apartheid. Basically they should be three elements. The first

element, there should be inhumane acts that are committed against a

racial group. In this case, we have, let's say, the two category citizens

in Israel, the Jewish citizens and the non-Jewish citizens. Other acts

that are committed against the non-Jewish citizens? Per second,

which is a very important condition, you need to show that those acts are

committed within the context of an institutional regime of domination

and oppression by one racial group over another. And third, you have to

show that it is intended to maintain the regime. So what the report does,

it looks at the act, and that it looks at the institutional

structures, it looks at the laws, and it looks at the Basic Law, and

it looks at how the non-Jewish citizens are treated. Let me quote

you Richard Goldstone, if I may. He is one of South Africa's most

respected senior thinkers, after he was asked to write a report of the

war, which the Israeli government hated, by the way, but Richard

Goldstone has reacted in this way to the comparison between what Israel

does and apartheid. He says in Israel nothing comes close to the

definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute. Inhumane acts

committed in the context of an institutional regime of systematic

oppression, that is the definition of apartheid. He said Israeli Arabs

represent 20% of the population. They have the vote, they have

political parties. One of them is on the Supreme Court. They occupy

positions of acclaim across the country. This is Israel. Have you

been to Israel? This is part of the story. Have you been to Israel? I am

trying to remember. I have... I have been to Gaza, I have been to the

West Bank. But that's the point, have you been to Israel? Occurs we

are talking about Israel's treatment of his own population on its own

sovereign territory. We can get to the occupied territories. Please

allow me to comment on this. Now I understand what Goldstone is saying,

and he is telling us only part of the truth. Goldstone did not tell us

that in Israel there is a differentiation between nationality

and citizenship. And this is very strange, by the way. In that you

have to be due in order to be a national. And there are of rights

that are associated with nationality. So you can be a

citizen, but you cannot have those other rights. And this is extremely

important. You cannot discriminate between your citizens. Excuse me,

but one of your sponsor countries, that commissioned this report, is

Saudi Arabia. Yes. It is not easy being a Christian in Saudi Arabia,

is it? What kind of rights do you have that? Wait a minute. First I

don't like the idea of jumping to compare with another country. When

we talk about apartheid and racial discretion and segregation, we are

talking about treating citizens within the same country. Now, Saudi

Arabia may be treated citizens cruelly, with cruelty. It may be the

case. But my point is a treat all its citizens the same. There are

Christians who live in Saudi Arabia... But there is a difference

in terms of the Basic Law. Whether legally... I'll tell you what. There

are areas of Saudi Arabia, particularly around Makkah, which

Christians are not allowed to enter. I understand this. They have their

excuses. I don't like them, but they don't have any law that says, for

example, in Jeddah a Muslim can own land, a Christian cannot own land.

In Israel, I'm sure you know that 93% of the land is owned by the

state, and land laws allow land agencies to develop and sell land to

Jews only. So you talk about 20% of the population who are non-Jewish?

Fine, but they are not allowed to buy land in Israel, except the lands

that stayed with them after Israel was established. And many of the

lands... Let's not get... You mentioned also political parties. Do

you know that it is unlawful in Israel to establish a political

party that questions the nature of the state as a Jewish state? So

basically you are telling the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, you

can vote, but once you elect did, you cannot question your subordinate

status. OK, you can lobby for additional, better budgets, for

better services, for better health and better education, but the Basic

Law is the disk and it against you, and that establish inequality, are

beyond your reach. Because if you do, you are illegal as a party. I

just wonder whether you are completing different issues here.

There is no doubt South Africa was a racist state, built on racist

premises. Same with, of course, the Nazis. They were deeply racist in

the way they viewed people and society. Yes. Now, in Israel, and

this is a quote from a Palestinian expert on Israel and Palestine, from

the Washington Institute, from Italy's policy, says accusing Israel

of being an apartheid state doesn't serve the Palestinian cause. Rather

it diverts attention from the fact that on the ground Israel is an

occupation state, and the conflict is on about racial segregation so

much as military occupation. This is, I think Mahmood from the court

that you just said was talking about the situation in the West Bank. We

have two problems in the West Bank. The first of the problem of the

military occupation which has lasted for half a century. And the second,

because this is not like the US occupation of Iraq, where you sent

your army, this is a case where Israel sent its population to settle

in the West Bank, to colonise the West Bank. So you ended up with an

occupied territory with two populations. The apartheid problem

emerges not from occupation but from the fact that you had two

populations on the same land, and you have different laws applying to

the two populations. So you have one set of laws that applies to the

Jewish settlers, and another set of laws that applies to the

Palestinians. If we didn't have this, then it would have been just a

military occupation, that everybody has been hoping will end.

The Israelis say that so many of the conditions put upon the Palestinians

are connected to security, it is security they say that led them to

build the barrier fence or wall whatever you choose to call it, it

is security that leads them to have wrote specifically for Jewish

settlers to get them safely to their settlements. Now, that is not about

a racial theory, that is about the practicalities of security. Mention

South Africa, is that exactly the same arguments that were used by the

South Africans. We are in a very difficult neighbourhood, except the

south African call them revolutionaries, they attack us,

they are barbaric and because of security we have to take such

measures, Israel is using the exact same arguments and no, security

doesn't mean, it doesn't this is as a -- it doesn't necessitate that you

treat a Jewish child and the Palestinian child differently, it

doesn't mean you have different judicial procedures or sentencing

when they commit a crime, if two children commit a crime regardless

of their religion they should be treated the same. When the Secretary

General saw your report he was appalled, so much so he demanded you

withdraw the report, and when you refused, you then said that you

would resign but the bottom line is he and his staff said that you had

ignored key UN protocols. He said... When you put this report online. It

should be enlightening that it isn't the of content, he wasn't appalled

at the content. Well, excuse the UN spokesman, I have it in front of

me," this report does not reflect the views of the Secretary General."

Of course. Every report that we submit, nothing represents the views

of the United Nations or the Secretary General that particularly

the United Nations, we are talking about member states and we as a

secretariat submit reports and they take resolutions and they may be

very different from the material that we submitted. The position of

the UN is taken over by its member states, not by the Secretary at. We

submit reports to the Security Council, they can adopt it or

completely ignore it and with a bit reports to be assembly and it is up

to them to take policies. You wrote a resignation letter to him in which

you said you have instructed me to withdraw not any fault but you found

in a report, because you disagreed with the content but due to

political pressure by member state who gravely violate the rights of

the people in the region. Obviously you by talking primarily about

Israel but I assume you are talking about the United States as well. Use

it to be accusing the new UN Secretary General of having no moral

backbone, of being a moral coward. I am accusing member state of

interfering in the work of the secretary. I know you are accusing

them of that but you are also saying that Mr Secretary General you have

been bullied, you have been weak, you have the spine of a jellyfish. I

didn't say that. Actually, I thought this in my resignation, I said I

understand that you have little choice and I understand the

difficult position you find yourself in. At the recent the Secretary

General finds himself in a very difficult position is because member

states are trying to impose on him what needs to be said and what needs

to be done. For the Secretary General, if I was the Secretary

General, if I have... I'm sorry but you are really not facing up to my

question- 80 or did he not bow down in the face of bullying, as you

would see at, from Israel and the United States? OK, whatever toys he

made, it was very difficult. -- choice. Let me ask you for a direct

answer to the question. I will answer you how... I will explain

what the situation that they found the sovereign, a member state is

breathing down your neck and telling you take this report of the website.

And you have the head of the agency telling you that unless you give me

a convincing reason or you Shami, I will not take it off my website.

What are the choices? If the Secretary General resists pressure

from member states, actually, the UN may lose its existence because those

member states will give up the UN. But if the Secretary General... Hang

on, USA and the United States of Donald Trump was threatening the UN

Secretary General to withdraw the billions in funding in the US is to

the UN? Actually, they started threatening this way before we issue

the report. They started their threats after the passing of the

settlement Security Council resolution in December 2016 and

Congress said we are going to be fun this agency unless they thought of I

don't know what the word they used takeback or cancel that resolution.

It seems to be it is very convenient for you to say I wrote a great

report but it was, it was bullying and it was the intimidation of

Israel and the United States that led to it being rejected by the UN

Secretary General but the truth surely is somewhat different, the

truth is that if one takes the logic of your report to its final

conclusion, you are saying that Israel is a racist state. I am.

Israel is renewing that old canard about Zionism being racist. If

that's what you really believe? Wait a minute. I'm talking about specific

laws, policies and practices. That pursue racial segregation. You

believe Israel is a racist state? I do believe that Israel discriminate

against its non-Jewish citizens. Are you questioning is Rob's right to

exist? What is this... Unless you are telling me that the Israel to

exist it has the practice racial discrimination and it has two

oppress all of the non-Jewish citizens and the non- Jewish people

in the occupied Territories that I can't see... You know the history

better than I, you know Israel was set up in 1948 as a state for the

dues. -- Jew. After all the history they went through, they were given a

homeland. I tell you what, I suggest you and probably the audience go

back to the UN resolution that established Israel, the partition

resolution, and it was very clear that it is a Jewish state and the

reason Arab state but neither of the two states, neither the Jewish or

the Arab state can have laws that discriminate between people based on

religion, sex, or race. So that was, that was the condition for

establishing the state. Actually the declaration of Independence for

Israel does not discriminate based on any of these factors. Then later

on, laws that discriminate based on religion and ethnic origin came into

the legal stature of Israel. What I'm saying is if we want peace the

region, we really need to address those laws, particularly now. We

were talking about recognising Israel as a Jewish state, my

references the Prime Minister of Israel, the Prime Minister of Israel

said what you mean by the Israel State, he said state for the Jewish

people and the Jewish people only. So you have... This is another

reference point for you, a written statement from the European

Parliament working group on anti-Semitism that denying the

Jewish people they write to self determination, i.e. By claiming that

the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour... I didn't

say that. That is in their terms of form of anti-Semitism. Buk, and I

know there are lots of flaws that are criticising Israel, and they

will lead to defamation and to labelling you as an anti-Semite

but... Would you accept among the member states, those 18 Arab member

nations, there are many people who do not accept the legitimacy of

Israel and there are many who bring anti-Semitism to the table when they

are discussing issues like this very one? I think we should differentiate

between the and a regime. State exist, a regime may not be

legitimate but not a state. I mean, when South Africa, when the

apartheid regime in South Africa was dismantled, South Africa existed but

in a different regime. All I'm saying is it is not against Israel,

it's against this type of regime that discriminates against people

and I think it is serious issue. We have to end but a final point and

again, it seems to be it raises questions about the consistency of

your position, you are a senior member in the Jordanian government

to make peace with Israel and then built a relationship with Israel,

even in the last few months and weeks, we have seen closer ties

being forged, a purchase agreement with $10 billion between the

Jordanian government and the Israeli Cabinet into a Netanyahu, more

Jordanian workers being allowed to cross into the Jordan river and work

in Israel in hotels around the dead Sea. The ties are getting tighter

and you, as a Jordanian, presumably are saying to your own government

which you are a loyal servant of this is unacceptable, we have to cut

all ties. First... With this racist apartheid state. Are you saying

that? I think as a result of issuing this report, member state should

show the responsibility, they should go to a sorry Katie of the determine

whether the findings are correct or not. If an authoritative by the ICC

or the General Assembly decide this is an apartheid state than member

states have a responsibility not to aid or assist in apartheid state and

continue and dominating other people. You are saying your own

government has it wrong? Your own government and King have a totally

misguided policy to Israel, is that what you are saying? I'm saying the

next step, if it proves that we go to an authoritative and they

determined that Israel is an apartheid state, then yes, my

government should not deal with them. Rima Khalaf, we have to end

there. Thank you for being on HARDtalk. Thank you.