Israel lawmakers, who usually aren’t too concerned about the impact of the closure on Gaza residents, have been urged to look into the threat being posed by Gaza’s sewage to Israel’s desalination plant at Ashkelon, just 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) north up the coast. So far, Israeli Minister for Environmental Affairs MK Gilad Ardan, in response to an inquiry from MK Ophir Pines-Paz, said, the coast is clear, but environmentalists aren’t so sure. Even the general director of the desalination plant has acknowledged that seawater coming into the plant is contaminated with sewage. 

We often hear concern for the impact of water contamination on Gaza’s fish and its small but bustling fishing industry, as well as Gaza families, who despite the reportedly murky waters, enjoy swimming in Gaza famously beautiful beaches. But what about the surfers?

Matthew Olsen, the director of Explore Corps, an organization that promotes surfing and other recreational activities in Gaza, recently blogged in response to concern for the health of the Gaza Surf Club.  The organization, which also supports a community of surfers called “Surfing 4 Peace”, celebrated the successful arrival of 12 new wetsuits which managed to clear the Israeli closure in time for the chillier winter weather and better waves. The wetsuits will protect the surfers from the chilly water temperatures, but unfortunately they won’t protect them against other threats in the cold waters.

One can’t help but wonder if an increase in the supply of aid is really something to be proud of. Israel isn’t the one paying for the aid. On the contrary, international organizations claim that due to the problems and restrictions created by Israel, they are forced to spend millions of dollars on logistics to work around the restrictions, instead of investing all their resources on the aid itself. They also say that the increase in supply over the past year stems from the drastically increased need for aid following the war.

Besides the fact that Israel is once again proud of itself for overcoming obstacles of its own creation, and that it deliberately chose a point of reference which is very low, the connection between the closure policy and the increased need for humanitarian aid should also be taken into consideration. In 2007, aid represented only 3% of all imports into the Gaza Strip. Yet in 2009, aid now represents 26% of all imports.

So long as the economy is paralyzed – with 95% of factories closed, Israel continuing to prevent the import of raw materials for industry, and the unemployment rate having risen 30% since the start of the closure to its current rate of 41.5% – it is doubtful whether there is any possibility that the need for aid will decrease.

Is this what the future has in store for the Gaza Strip – its residents left dependent on aid while the process of de-development continues?