In sixth place: There is a siege/blockade on the Strip

all it takes is a few photos of a bustling market to refute a very simplistic understanding of the closure. Feras Market in Gaza City

Though the words “siege” and “blockade” are frequently used, we believe those terms actually misrepresent the situation in important ways. “Closure” has been our term of choice, and in our 2008 paper Gaza Closure Defined we explained why in detail. Leaving aside the legal terms and definitions, it’s clear that siege and blockade are used to describe the difficult situation faced by residents of Gaza, mainly by well-intentioned individuals who want to help. The problem is that these terms tend to evoke a situation where nothing and no one comes in or out (again, this despite the fact that their legal meanings are quite specific). It’s certainly not the case that nothing or no one is moving and because of this, it’s quite easy to refute the terms, thus dismissing the very real and difficult closure that is in place. In other words, all it takes is a few photos of a bustling market or statistics on truckloads to refute a very simplistic understanding of the closure. The point is not that movement isn’t occurring at all, the point is that it’s not in the right quantities or kinds.

In fifth place: People in Gaza can’t go anywhere

This was not far from the truth until June 2010, when Egypt began to allow for greater movement of people via Rafah Crossing. Today around 28,000 people pass through the crossing in both directions each month, and there are no longer waiting lists for exit from Gaza into Egypt. So access to the outside world from Gaza is easier today, and less controlled by Israel.

What hasn’t really changed are the restrictions on travel from Gaza to Israel and the West Bank, which is by far the most important. Considering that Gaza and the West Bank share one education and one health system, are bound by countless familial and social ties, and that Gaza’s primary markets are in Israel and the West Bank, this is where the crux of the problem lies. Exit from Gaza via Israel, for those needing to travel into Israel or to the West Bank, officially remains limited to “exceptional humanitarian circumstances”. In practice, Israel allows approximately 3000 exits of Palestinians from Gaza every month: nearly half are businessmen, and the rest are mainly medical patients and their companions. Compared with more than half a million exits before the start of the second Intifada in September 2000, this is hardly sufficient.

There are several thousand statusless persons in Gaza and it is unclear how many of these have no other form of valid travel document. For these individuals travel really is impossible because they are not recognized by Israel, Egypt, or any other place for that matter. Israel, via its control of the Palestinian population registry, continues to determine who is counted as a resident of the occupied territory and can therefore receive an ID and passport.

In fourth place: It’s illegal for Israel to stop ships on their way to Gaza

Gisha’s position is that Israel has the right under the law of occupation to determine by which routes goods and people enter and leave the Gaza Strip, and condition their passage on security checks. However, at the same time it bears an obligation to allow movement and access in such a way that facilitates normal life. In other words, the same authority that allows them to stop ships translates into a responsibility to allow freedom of movement, subject only to specific and necessary security screening procedures.

In third place: Israel bears full responsibility for what happens in Gaza because of the occupation

In our opinion, the formula that makes the most sense is that control equals responsibility – where you exercise it, you are also responsible for it. That means that Israel bears primary responsibility in the spheres where it maintains control of Gaza – such as on the ability to export and on movement between Gaza and the West Bank. This does not mean, however, that other actors exercising control, namely Hamas and the PA, don’t also bear a responsibility for what happens in those domains where they are the primary actor – for example, in the creation of school textbooks or the running of prisons.

In second place: What Gaza needs is more aid

A common refrain we hear is that people want to work, not receive charity. Abu Shawareb family

While it’s true that at least 70% of the population receives humanitarian aid, the key problem isn’t that there is a lack of aid but rather a lack of economic activity to pull people up and away from dependence on aid. A common refrain we hear is that people want to work, not receive charity. Restrictions on movement, of both goods and people, have prevented residents of Gaza from engaging in the productive, dignified work that could be available to them otherwise. Take the case of Naima Abu Shawareb and her family as an example.

The good news is that Gaza has the potential to form a productive and prosperous part of the Palestinian territory: it has infrastructure, universities, a robust civil society, industries and a highly educated population. This should give reason not to be satisfied that things are “good enough” but rather to demand that access be permitted to allow that potential to be reached.

In first place: There’s a humanitarian crisis in Gaza

Like we note above, when one paints the Strip with wide swaths of murky terminology, the task of refuting and obscuring the real picture becomes much easier. Is the entirety of Gaza’s population facing a humanitarian crisis, in the terms that one might imagine places ravaged by famine or destitution? The answer is no. It’s hard to argue though that without the efforts and resources of international organizations, including the United Nations, the situation wouldn’t be much worse. It’s also hard to argue that restrictions on movement which have resulted in a stifled economy and high dependence on charity are in any way acceptable, especially given that the official policy of the Israeli government is to enable economic development in Gaza. We think that the question of whether or not there is a humanitarian crisis is the wrong one to ask. We’re often under the impression that for some, the ambiguous red line that defines a humanitarian crisis also demarcates the extent of their concern. We believe that it’s Israel’s and the international community’s duty and in their interest to strive higher than that.

Gaza is not as isolated from the rest of the world as it was a few years ago, but it is still cut off from the West Bank and it’s hard to find convincing security reasons why. For example, Israel prohibits students from traveling from Gaza to the West Bank – individual security checks are not even an option because the ban is sweeping. Israel does not allow goods from Gaza to be sold in the West Bank or Israel, while at the same time allowing exports from Gaza to Europe to be transferred through its own airports and seaports. It also imposes restrictions on the import of building materials into the Gaza Strip. The impact is felt mainly by international organizations rather than the local government, which gets all the cement, gravel, and steel it needs from the tunnels. Ongoing restrictions make it difficult for Gaza’s economy to recover, but they also split families apart and impede Gaza residents’ access to higher education and the opportunity to acquire training in a number of highly needed fields.

In fifth place: “Israel gives Gaza money, electricity and water”.

True, Israel does give Gaza residents electricity and water. That is, if by “give” you mean “sells”. Israel also does not “give” money to Gaza’s residents – it does transfer tax monies it collects on their behalf, although sometimes with great delay.

In fourth place: “The Palmer Report concluded that the closure was legal”.

The Palmer Commission decided not to examine the legality of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip and determined only that the naval blockade imposed on Gaza was legal. In its report, the commission included a recommendation for Israel to continue easing restrictions on movement “with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population”.

And one wishes to move to the West Bank? Rafah crossing, 3.30.2005. Photo: PHR

In third place: “Gaza has a border with Egypt, so Egypt should take care of the Strip”.

Six months ago, we posted the top ten reasons why the opening of Rafah Crossing just doesn’t cut it. The list is still valid, but here’s the gist of it: Even if Egypt fully opens Rafah to movement of people and goods, this would still not provide a solution for the problem of movement restrictions between Gaza and the West Bank. The desire to push Gaza onto Egypt and therefore make it possible to cut the Strip off from the West Bank is a common one, but its implementation would entangle Israel legally and politically.

In second place: “Israel disengaged from Gaza and all it got was Qassam rockets”.

Firing Qassam rockets on civilians is an unjustifiable war crime. This much is clear. We should keep in mind that the rockets didn’t start after the disengagement from Gaza and that four and a half years of closure have done nothing to reduce the threat of rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel – but don’t take our word for it.

As for disengagement, Israel did remove its permanent military installations and civilian settlements from the Gaza Strip, but did this really end Israeli control over Gaza? Try asking a Palestinian from Gaza if she feels that Israel has really “disengaged” from her life. She wouldn’t think twice before responding in the negative. Israel controls her ability to study in the West Bank, export goods, fish, farm her lands and visit relatives. True, it’s hard to imagine control of a territory without permanent military presence on the ground, but this is exactly Gaza’s unique situation today.

And in first place: “Gaza’s residents voted for Hamas so they had it coming to them”.

Hamas’ victory in parliamentary elections in 2006, shortly after the “disengagement” was met with surprise. Withdrawal from Gaza didn’t bolster those in support of the peace process as many in Israel had expected. Today, more than five years after the elections were held, they are still used as an excuse for the closure.

First of all, it is important to stress that international law prohibits collective punishment of a civilian population and for good reason. Past experience has taught that civilians, irrespective of their political convictions, must remain “off limits”. This principle must be upheld in Gaza, in Israel and in all other places in the world facing conflict.

While we’re on the topic of the elections, and to be accurate, the elections Hamas won were not held just in the Gaza Strip but also in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. It was more than a year after the elections, in June 2007, that Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip.

No elections have been held in Gaza since 2006 and the debate between the various political movements in the Strip has been ongoing. One way of following this debate is through polls, such as those published by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. For example, a poll from December 2011 shows that if elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council were to be held now, Hamas would get 35% of the vote and Fatah 43%. It’s worth recalling also that over half of Gaza’s population is below voting age. How can children be blamed for the outcome of elections in which they didn’t take part?

Can you think of more misconceptions? Comment below.

Santa is back. Photo: stock.xchg

Last Monday we put up a post about the narrowed criteria for allowing Christians to travel out of the Gaza Strip over Christmas this year, which the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) called “easings”.

Adv. Nomi Heger, director of Gisha’s Legal Department, wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defense raising questions about the narrowing of criteria. We can’t tell whether the letter had its intended effect or whether it was our short post on the subject, or perhaps the security establishment’s goodwill, but it appears that COGAT has retreated. The age criterion, which was set this year at allowing travel for those over 46 and under 16, was restored to last year’s age range of over 35 and under 16.

COGAT didn’t bother to post a separate update notifying about its decision to change the criteria but instead chose to quietly alter the original notice posted on its website, the one that reported the “easings” in the first place. It’s unclear how the word “easings” can be used to describe the act of leaving the situation exactly as it was previously. But then again, COGAT is good at coming up with creative uses for this and other words .

Luckily, Google kept a cached version of the original notice, before COGAT decided to change it. Below are images of the screens side by side. Enjoy and happy holidays.

Before and after. Screenshot from COGAT site

A closer look at the goodwill gesture suggests that the Grinch – and not just Santa Claus – has been at work. Photo: stock.xchg

Christmas cheer came a bit early for Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza with the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories’ (COGAT) announcement of goodwill gestures for Christians during the holiday season. It would appear that Santa has decided that 500 Palestinian Christians from Gaza who are under the age of 16 and over the age of 46 have been nice this year and so deserve a chance to visit family in Israel and the West Bank and participate in religious festivities at holy sites outside the Strip.

It’s a welcome gesture and certainly important that the principles of freedom of movement and freedom of religious worship, as well as goodwill, find expression in COGAT’s actions.

But a closer look at the goodwill gesture suggests that the Grinch – and not just Santa Claus – has been at work. In this year’s stocking for Gaza’s Christians is a rollback of their ability to access holy sites on the holidays, relative to past years: Israel has raised the age of those banned from traveling to 46 years old, rather than 35 years old, and has set a quota of just 500 people being allowed to travel, even though about 600 Christians traveled last year.

Whether they have been naughty or nice, at least two-thirds of Gaza’s approximately 1,500 Christians, including all those between the ages of 16-46 who are excluded from the gesture, won’t be able to celebrate the holiday with their family members who meet the criteria and do squeeze into the quota. That means a family of six, with mom and dad over the ages of 46 but with children aged 20, 16, 14, and 7 will either have to forfeit the chance to travel or the option of spending Christmas together.

Last year at Christmas, and even this past Easter, the criteria stipulated that those over 35 years of age could receive permits. It’s not clear why this Christmas only those over 46 can travel. Israel’s policy is even more restrictive for Muslims in Gaza: Muslims of any age can’t travel to holy sites, a policy approved in the courts earlier this year, so I guess we have to be grateful for small miracles. In any case, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

Update, 12.22.11: It appears the COGAT has decided to change the criteria again. If you wish to read about the change and the way it was done click here.

Mohammad’s story isn’t necessarily heartbreaking. He is a 19-year old, outstanding student from Gaza who wants to study mechatronics (an emerging discipline that combines mechanical engineering with computer science and other fields) so he can join his father’s business. Until now there hasn’t been a mechatronics program in the Gaza Strip. Al Azhar University opened a pilot program this year, but Mohammad prefers to study at Birzeit University in the West Bank, in a program that already has an established reputation. The Israeli army’s district coordination office (DCO) for Gaza rejected Mohammed’s application to study in the West Bank. It has nothing to do with Mohammed himself. He is not accused or suspected of committing security offenses. It’s not personal, it’s just that no students from Gaza are allowed to travel to the West Bank to study.

Again, this is not a heartbreaking story, just another small dream crushed by movement restrictions. Israel’s security establishment has been preventing students from Gaza from studying in the West Bank since the year 2000, in a blanket ban. The students are not asked to undergo individual security checks; they are considered a security threat simply because they are students.

This isn’t an exaggeration. In 2005, Gisha petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on behalf of students from Gaza who wished to study occupational therapy in the West Bank. Gisha asked that the DCO run individual security checks on the students’ applications. The state opposed the request, claiming that students are collectively considered a risk group and that West Bank universities serve as “greenhouses for growing terrorists”. The HCJ rejected the petition in 2007, but it did recommend that a mechanism be established to individually examine such requests. Despite this recommendation, no student from the Gaza Strip has been allowed to study in the West Bank, apart from three who were allowed to exit in 2010 as an exception to the rule and at the request of the US. We repeat: so far – four years since the HCJ recommendation and 11 years since the ban on student travel was put in place – only three students have received permission to study in the West Bank.

The ban has a chilling effect. As time goes by, fewer and fewer students ask for a permit to study in the West Bank, simply because they know they won’t get it.

The sweeping ban on movement doesn’t just hurt individuals, it hurts Palestinian society as a whole. Picture: Al Azhar University

A blow to Palestinian society

The sweeping ban on movement doesn’t just hurt individuals, it hurts Palestinian society as a whole. Since the higher education system is more developed in the West Bank, cutting it off from the Gaza impairs the advancement of education and socioeconomic development in general in the Strip.

There are nine universities in the West Bank, as opposed to five in Gaza. The West Bank also has dozens of colleges. West Bank universities offer a much wider variety of programs including degrees in occupational therapy, medical engineering, veterinary medicine, and democracy and human rights, which are not available in the Strip. In fact, in 2010, the number of undergraduate programs and internships offered in the West Bank was 23% higher than the number offered in the Gaza Strip. It was 60% higher for graduate programs. At Gaza universities there is also a shortage of books, facilities and lab equipment and the student to teacher ratio in the Gaza Strip is twice that of the West Bank.

In addition to the lack of advanced studies, Gaza is short on skilled professionals: it has physicians who have not had sufficient training and a shortage of occupational therapists and dentists. For example, the Gaza Strip has no university-affiliated hospital and students are unable to complete their medical residency properly. Similarly, in the field of rehabilitation, while Gaza residents desperately need access to accredited therapists, Israel refuses to allow Gaza students to travel to the West Bank for training in occupational therapy.

And so, even as some Israeli politicians berate the Palestinian education system for teaching hatred, only a few have taken action against the ban on student travel to the West Bank to enroll in subjects like gender studies or human rights and democracy. After all, all Palestinian students are a “security threat”. And a shortage of physicians, human rights activists or engineers doesn’t threaten security at all.

To clarify, Israel has a right, even an obligation, to protect its citizens, but it is difficult to see how the current policy serves to ensure security. It is particularly puzzling considering the fact that Israel allows 70 to 100 merchants to enter its territory from Gaza every day. Though the scant number of permits given for the business sector do not meet its needs, it does prove that a similar mechanism for individual security checks could be put in place for students.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently stated in an interview that Palestinian economic development is vital for ending the conflict. Since the connection between quality higher education and economic development is self-evident, one might hope that the same logic would lead the foreign minister and the rest of the government to allow students from Gaza to study in the West Bank.

Wadah Bassiso, a prominent businessman in the furniture industry who lives in Gaza, was granted a rare opportunity. He was to be the first person to export furniture from Gaza since the year 2007. But the opportunity came and went. Shortly before he was to begin exporting his furniture to the Czech Republic, Bassiso’s factory burned to the ground. The cause of the fire is still being investigated.

Bassiso’s tragedy is Gaza’s tragedy, as he was the only merchant who was able to secure a work order for furniture from abroad. Export of furniture from Gaza, touted as an expansion of export generally, was actually reliant on the export of a single merchant. One factory burns down and with it furniture export from Gaza.

It is no coincidence that there’s just one merchant wishing to export furniture. Furniture export to the Czech Republic, an operation in which the army already took great pride, is not a viable solution for Gaza furniture makers who have traditionally sold their wares to the West Bank and Israel. Gaza manufacturers do not make furniture for assembly which can be transported over long distances, but rather pre-assembled furniture which has to be loaded onto trucks. Shipping furniture to Europe would require major changes to the manufacturing process, which cost money, entail the development of new skills and take time, and all for export which is barely profitable considering shipping costs and international competition. Under these conditions, it is difficult to see how export to the Czech Republic – if another merchant rises in the place of Bassiso – would bring real improvement to Gaza’s economy.

Sealing up the fate of the dangerous potato

As always, shipping is key. Photo: stock.xchg

How do you allow export without actually allowing it? By imposing restrictions that make it impossible. Case in point: potato export to Jordan, the export that could not be. In principle, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories allows export of potatoes to Jordan and other places, provided those places are not Israel or the West Bank. Allows, that is, as long as a number of minor demands are met. In the case of the potatoes, they were to be transported in closed containers and inside specially-sealed trucks which have the capacity to transport 8 tons of produce (as opposed to the 20 ton-capacity of a standard truck).

As always, shipping is key. Israel’s demands increased the shipping costs to Jordan so much so that the entire project was cancelled. Yes, Palestinians are officially allowed to export potatoes to Jordan, just like they are allowed to export furniture to Europe. Officially. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said in the past: “Now the Gazans must develop their export markets abroad”. Unfortunately, Israel isn’t making their job easy.

The run-away cherry tomatoes

So what’s left? Exporting agricultural products to Europe. There’s not much to write home about. First of all, export is limited to the winter season only. It does not include summer fruits and vegetables and of course, it does not include any non-agricultural products. The quantities in question are also negligible, relatively speaking. In 2005, before the closure, the Gaza Strip exported 904 tons of cherry tomatoes – more than five times the quantity designated for export this season. Past experience shows that it is doubtful that this year’s export plans will actually materialize in full.

Why do Europeans suddenly have such a great interest in Gaza’s cherry tomatoes? The real story is in the fine print. Agricultural export from Gaza is funded by the Dutch government. How can export be funded? The answer is simple – when it’s not profitable. All agricultural export from Gaza currently forms part of a joint Dutch-Palestinian project which is meant to help rehabilitate Gaza’s economy. In other words, even shipments of vegetables and flowers to Europe – small as they may be – resemble a humanitarian project more than actual economic activity.

In summary, we had furniture export that hinged on the luck of a single merchant, export to Jordan which became unfeasible because of a few impractical restrictions and agricultural export to Europe, which is so tenuous that it requires external funding. This is the story of Gaza’s export – export that is meant to support the economy of a population of over 1.6 million people.

Flowers and Vegetables. Munther Budi Farm , Gaza , Biet Lahia

Three days ago two truckloads of strawberries exited Gaza and passed through Israel on their way to Europe. They were the first truckloads of export allowed out of the Strip in over six months, part of a program funded by the Dutch government to bring Gaza produce to European markets.

To mark the occasion, we recall an animated clip about the volume of goods entering the Gaza Strip released by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) in June of this year.The numbers seem impressive – every day about 260 trucks enter Gaza from Israel, carrying about 6,000 tons of goods. According to the clip, Israel can transfer double that volume into the Gaza Strip, about 400 trucks per day, carrying 12,000 tons of goods, however “demand is ultimately determined by the Palestinians”.In other words, what closure?

As usual, our main dispute is not with the figures released by COGAT,we just wish to fill in the blanks and give a more complete picture of the situation. For example, alongside the relaxation in restrictions on entrance of goods to Gaza since mid-2010, the ban on sale of goods out of Gaza has remained in place. The two truckloads of strawberries that left in Sunday come on the heels of more than six months during which no product of any kind left the Strip. So can we call it an end to the restrictions on export? Doesn’t look like it. Are the restrictions for security reasons? You make the call.

So is there export? Very little and with great difficulty

Produce from Gaza enters Israel, where it is transferred to the Ashdod seaport or Ben Gurion airport for travel on to Europe. Marketing Palestinian produce all the way in Europe is naturally more costly, so much so that it’s simply not profitable. In other words, the export isn’t a product of a functioning economy, more like the outcome of a humanitarian aid project.

Sale of goods to the West Bank or Israel from Gaza has been strictly prohibited since June of 2007, despite the fact that the produce that is exported to Europe enters Israel and undergoes full security screening en route to the port and airport. Before Israel tightened the closure in 2007, some 85% of the goods leaving Gaza were destined for Israel and the West Bank.

“Over the past year”, COGAT’s website states, “Palestinian exporters brought more than 399 tons of strawberries, 10 million carnations, 6.5 tons of cherry tomatoes, and 6 tons of yellow, red, and green bell pepper to European markets”. Sounds great, right? This is the entire quantity of export from Gaza for a whole year. Gaza’s strawberry export potential is some 2,300 tons per year. In 2005, 904 tons of cherry tomatoes were exported from Gaza, 140 times the amount planned for the upcoming season.

Let the goods go

Let’s get back to COGAT’s animated video clip. It says that Israel doesn’t transfer more goods into the Strip because Palestinians aren’t asking for more. This is partially true. Israel doesn’t “transfer” goods to Palestinians. It only allows goods to be bought by Palestinians. Palestinians are not demanding more goods in part because of continued restrictions on the entrance of some raw materials (including construction materials) and in part because purchasing power is weak in the Strip. And purchasing power will remain weak as long as Israel continues to severely restrict export.

In the second quarter of 2011, unemployment in the Gaza Strip stood at 28%. Unemployment is particularly high in the 20 – 24 age bracket, where it reached 42% in the first half of 2011. Without a vibrant and profitable manufacturing sector – industrial and agricultural – it is hard to see how the situation might improve.

What does Israel have to gain by continuing to paralyze the private sector in the Gaza Strip? According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the answer is clear – nothing. This is what Netanyahu said in February:  “… [S]tability is important at all times, but it’s especially important now and the first set of steps that we’re taking are to continue the policy we’ve advanced to enable economic growth in the Palestinian areas…. it’s contributed to a better life for the Palestinians and I think it’s contributing to peace and security in the long term”.Well spoken indeed, but it is time to put words into action.

Stay tuned, in the next post we share three export stories: dangerous potatoes, burning furniture, and the runaway cherry tomatoes…

Get updates on Facebook »
Get updates in Twitter »

“Do you want to know what I can’t forgive?” my cousin’s mother-in-law asks me, “What they did in Gaza after we left”.
“Grandma! No politics, please”, says my cousin’s son, the family peacemaker. “It’s Rosh HaShana.”
“No, I want you to listen”, she says, directing her comments to me. “We gave them every possible opportunity. We cleared out of the whole place. They could have made a great life for themselves there. And what did they do? They destroyed everything and fired rockets at us”.

My cousin’s wife invites us to the table, covered with dishes of food and decorated with bowls of pomegranates and flowers. The flowers are from my cousin’s nursery; the pomegranates are a traditional symbol of the Jewish New Year. Hold the politics, please.

My cousin’s mother-in-law is not the only person from whom I hear that “we left Gaza, and in return they fired missiles at us”. We hear that message from newspaper columnists, military commentators and others, as well as at the holiday dinner table. This narrative is based on an almost intuitive principle that control equals responsibility. According to this approach, since Israel has left the Gaza Strip, it no longer bears any responsibility toward Gaza or its residents – particularly if they fire rockets at civilian communities inside Israel. A state of combat exists between the State of Israel and armed groups in Gaza, and you don’t have to be an expert in international law to know that, in wartime, obligations toward civilians are minimal. They must not be harmed intentionally or disproportionately, and they must be provided with humanitarian supplies – but not much more than that.

Attorney Tamar Feldman and I wrote “Scale of Control; Israel’s Continued Responsibility in the Gaza Strip”,a new position paper by Gisha, in response to this argument. Our legal analysis is based on the same basic principle: control equals responsibility. However, we argue that even after the disengagement, and although the extent of Israel’s control over the Gaza Strip has been reduced, it continues to control key aspects of life in Gaza.We cannot say, therefore, that the occupation has ended, even if there are signs of its gradual retreat. Accordingly, the extent of Israel’s responsibility toward the population in Gaza is also far above the humanitarian minimum mentioned above. Israel’s control of the passage of people and goods to and from Gaza effectively determines whether residents of the Strip can thrive and prosper. In our opinion, Israel is not only obliged to enable such prosperity, but it is actually in Israel’s interest to do so.

The framework proposed in Scale of Control is a logical division of the responsibility for the Strip between the various actors that exercise control over Gaza. We believe that an understanding of the complex situation in Gaza is essential to promotinga balanced discussion. Such an understanding can help decision-makers formulate policies which protect the rights of Gaza residents while meeting Israel’s security needs. Gaza is not going anywhere. Israel’s policy toward the Strip remains high on the political agenda, and discussion of the subject creeps onto the newspaper pages and into discussions around the holiday table. After years of closure, we believe that the time has come to consider a new policy.

Read the executive summary »
Read the full position paper »
Visit us on Facebook »
Visit us on Twitter »

In the news release you issued after the Shalit deal you wrote, among other things, “We join in the sigh of relief that is palpable today throughout Israel and of course the relief felt by the Shalit family and the families of the prisoners who will be released”.

I’d like to ask how you can join in the sighs of relief of the families of men and women who murdered civilians.

J

Yoni Eshpar, director of Gisha’s public department, responded to J’s comment in detail, and since he was not the only person to criticize our news release, we chose to publish the short correspondence between them, after obtaining Y’s consent:

Dear J,

First I’d like to thank you for your inquiry. We value the responses we receive about our work from those following our publications and we consider each one carefully.
It was unclear to me from your message whether you had read thefull news release or just the segments that were quoted from it in various media. In any case, I believe the answer to your question can be found in the lines that follow the segment you quote, which make it clear that our sense of relief did not come from support for the actions of the Shalit family or of identification with the actions of the Palestinian prisoners who were to be released, but rather from our hope that that moment would “signal an end to this difficult chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and lead us down a path toward positive changes for ordinary people in Gaza and in Israel”. Our news release deliberately focused on ordinary people because we believe they deserve the opportunity to lead normal lives, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians and regardless of actions taken by their leaders, or even their family members.

We took no official position for or against the deal, just as we have no formal position on many other political issues. Gisha’s staff is both Jewish and Arab, individuals from different backgrounds and with different beliefs who hold a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints about the reality in which we live. However, we all agree that freedom of movement for the purpose of education, employment, trade and family life is a human right and that upholding and safeguarding this right, even under the complex conditions of armed conflict, serves all parties to the conflict, including Israelis. Gisha chose to focus on freedom of movement for these reasons and usually refrains from making statements on other issues, with rare exceptions (such as our joining in the criticism of the conditions under which Hamas was holding Gilad Shalit).

I conclude by stating the obvious, that attacking civilians deliberately is an abhorrent war crime. The released prisoners who took part in such attacks are guilty of war crimes. I realize why the deal that brought their release remains a controversial and sensitive issue in Israel, and, as stated, there are differences of opinion among our staff about this as well. However, now that the deal has been made, we can only hope that it will open the door for an informed public debate about Israel’s policy toward the Gaza Strip, a debate that would focus on the best interest of Israel’s citizens rather than their concern, understandable as it is, for the fate of the captive soldier.

Sincerely,

Yoni Eshpar

***

Hello Yoni and thank you for your response.

I would first like to note that I did read the full news release before I wrote to you.

Regarding the issue itself, you write:

I believe the answer to your question can be found in the lines that follow the segment you quote, which make it clear that our sense of relief did not come from support for the actions of the Shalit family or of identification with the actions of the Palestinian prisoners who were to be released, but rather from our hope that that moment would “signal an end to this difficult chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and lead us down a path toward positive changes for ordinary people in Gaza and in Israel”.

I believe that the message you conveyed to me should have been explicitly stated, rather than merely implied, in the official news release.

J

***

Dear J,

I accept your comment and I thank you again for directing my attention to the misunderstanding that may have been arisen as a result of our choice of words in the news release. A short news release always leaves out more than it says, but I do agree that we should make every effort to say things as clearly and explicitly as possible and leave very little room for interpretation.

I’m sure this correspondence would interest others who follow our work and I request your consent for posting it in full on our blog. We can do so without revealing your name and personal details if you prefer.

Sincerely,

Yoni

***

Dear Yoni,

You can do as you wish with my comments, except publish my name.I am asking that you do not reveal my name because I have had bad experiences in the past, with my words being twisted…

J

Kerem Shalom Crossing. At the crossing, less than half the quantity of goods entering Gaza in 2005 is currently transferred to the Strip, no goods are exported.

The deal to free Gilad Shalit in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners is a moment of liberation not only for them and their families but for all residents of Israel and the Gaza Strip. The deal also holds the possibility of release from the concept that has shaped Israeli policy toward the Gaza Strip ever since Gilad Shalit was captured five and a half years ago – the concept of closure.

In the time that has passed since Shalit’s capture, no one, not a single minister, security official, senior commentator or serious researcher, either on the left or the right, has argued that the closure helped Israel’s fight against Hamas and the efforts to free Shalit. In the past year, following the flotilla incident, consensus that this policy damages Israel both politically and in terms of security has only grown. The policy was meant to weaken Hamas, but instead it was strengthened. It was meant to isolate Gaza, but it was Israel that ended up isolated.

Last summer, the Israeli government decided (Hebrew) to remove what Prime Minister Netanyahu termed the “civilian closure” based on the understanding that it undermined the “security closure”. However, the “easing” of the closure has proceeded slowly – with words more than it has with deeds, with much hesitation and with many excuses – as if this wasn’t a goal the government itself had defined as an Israeli interest. A major part of the reason for this was Gilad Shalit’s continued captivity. Even Israeli policy makers who thought the closure should be lifted were held prisoner by the public’s anger and the security establishment’s frustrations. According to the formula that the public had come to accept, any policy or action that benefited Gaza’s residents (such as respecting their right to education – PDF) was a concession to Hamas, or worse still, it meant giving up on Shalit.

Throughout these years, Gisha has spoken to senior security, financial and political figures who agreed that the closure should be lifted but refused to say anything publicly “as long as Gilad is still in captivity”. And so, on top of the price Israeli society paid for one of its sons being held in captivity was the price paid for a damaging policy its leaders failed to overturn. The price paid by Gaza’s residents has of course been, and continues to be, very heavy and painful.

Now, with the imminent release of Gilad Shalit and Palestinian prisoners, we hope the moment of release from this policy has also come – a moment when official statements about the need to distinguish between Gaza’s civilian population and those who engage in violence against Israel are put into practice. From this moment on, the government would be able to say proudly and openly that it is finally breaking away from the concept it inherited from its predecessor and moving forward, without hesitation or excuses, to achieve its goal and remove the civilian closure. All that it needs to do is allow goods out of Gaza, allow people to travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and remove the restrictions on bringing building materials into the Strip – all while safeguarding legitimate security interests.

Gisha in Facebook »
Gisha in Twitter »