There is continued buzz this week over new commercial developments in Gaza. The shopping mall is a media favorite, as are reports of a new water park, a media center and new cafes and restaurants. Never mind that all these are housed in either existing buildings that were refurbished or were built anew with materials and money coming in via the tunnel economy; the mere existence of a few places of recreation would seem to point to the total absence of any problems with regard to freedom of movement. Not the case, as we reported last week. Unfortunately, a new mall and a few new humanitarian projects don’t point in the direction of the real reconstruction, recovery and development Gaza needs, especially in order for the economic market to absorb Gaza’s young people.

In late July, the Tawjihi post-high school exam results were announced to the dread or delight of Gaza’s 36,594 exiting high school seniors. Over the summer vacation, these youngsters are making plans for their future like young people elsewhere. Will they attend one of Gaza’s five universities, which don’t offer badly needed degrees in environmental science, medical engineering, veterinary medicine and occupational therapy? Or will they seek to travel abroad, since travel to West Bank universities remains banned? Will they join the ranks of Gaza’s 34% unemployed, or seek work elsewhere, perhaps underground?

Photo: Karl Schembri/Oxfam

In July, following the Israeli Cabinet decision to “ease” the closure, only 4% of the goods entering Gaza were raw materials destined for production, and of course, export remains banned. Under these conditions, it’s clear that the market couldn’t have suddenly bounced back and that not all is good and well.

The youth of Gaza continue to wait for the promised, renewed “economic activity” and hope for opportunities to begin building tomorrow’s future. A new resort or restaurant built from tunnel money can’t possibly employ them all.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2010, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) released its latest update, claiming to be actively contributing to the humanitarian needs and even economic development of the Gaza Strip. Contrast the MFA report with UN agency OCHA’s critical report on limitations to access in the Palestinian territory released on May 27, 2010.

We wrote last week about the seeming paradox between a policy whose stated goals are to reduce civilians to the minimum “essential for survival” (but not to fall below it) in order to achieve political gains, while at the same time boasting of one’s humanitarianism.

This week, together with Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel), an Israeli human rights group that protects the right to health, we provide further details.

Humanitarian aid only, and even that just barely trickles through

• Food and hygiene products continue to account for 76% of the goods allowed in to Gaza, although entrance is routinely denied for many food items including chocolate and vinegar. Food items that could be used as inputs for local food production – such as margarine in large buckets or glucose – are banned. Civil society institutions, critical infrastructure, factories, schools, and even homes can’t function on flour, sugar, and sponges alone.

• Numbers show that indeed many tons of aid is going into the Strip, destined especially for the 80% of Gaza residents now completely dependent on charity because of the collapse of the economy. Export for commercial purposes, which was allowed on exceptional basis for the strawberry and flower markets, was minimal: 259 trucks in three years were allowed to leave Gaza, which is less than what Gaza residents were exporting in four days prior to June 2001.

• The Foreign Ministry claims that Israel facilitates “all cases of medical treatments from Gaza unless the patient is a known perpetrator of terror”. Last year, over 2,300 entry permits for medical treatment were either rejected or delayed by Israeli officials. These rejections included many individuals who, according to Israel, “only” wish to improve their “quality of life” – by trying to avoid loss of vision or limbs. In these cases, Israel says it need not allow entrance. It also includes patients denied entry where no security allegation was made, but rather the military claimed there was concern that they would remain in the West Bank after treatment, contrary to Israel’s political goal of separating Gaza from the West Bank.

• During the first two months of 2010, PHR-Israel re-submitted the requests of 23 individuals who were initially rejected for security reasons. Thanks to expert opinions from senior Israeli physicians attached to each request, 10 out of the 23 cases were overturned. This raises serious questions about the balancing act that Israel claims it performs between each patient’s medical needs and his or her perceived threat to State security. It also raises questions about the State’s definition of “security risk”.

• Israel claims that Hamas is often an obstacle to granting permits for medical care. However, Hamas has little to do with the permit process. The process was actually created during the Oslo Peace Process, and both the Palestinian Authority and Israel have a role to play. Patients are required to receive an authorized referral from practicing physicians in Gaza, apply for financial coverage from the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, submit papers to a Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in Gaza subject to the authority of the PA in Ramallah, which then forwards the request to the Israeli Army at Erez Crossing. This process takes an average of 6 weeks and is extremely taxing on Gaza’s sick and injured as well as their families.

• While Israel has the right to conduct security checks, Israel often exploits a patient’s vulnerable state by preconditioning entry for medical treatment on participation in a Shin Bet interrogation – in violation of international law. In several cases, the Shin Bet has summoned patients to the Erez Crossing for security investigations, and then tried to coerce them into collaborating with the Shin Bet by conditioning an exit permit on their collection and provision of information to the Shin Bet. In a number of instances, the Shin Bet went as far as using the permit application process as a way to “lure” Palestinians to the Erez checkpoint in order to arrest them: upon arrival at the checkpoint, they have been immediately arrested and imprisoned in Israeli jails.

Illustration: Moran Barak, source: PHR-Israel

• The MFA reports that coordination with international parties on entrance for building supplies takes place regularly. OCHA, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that it took nine months of negotiations to get approval for entrance of items to finish construction on some 151 housing facilities that were already 85% complete on the eve of the closure in June 2007. This is a hard-fought-for drop in the bucket compared with the 86,000 housing units that are needed in Gaza.

• Likewise, UNRWA reports that donor funds to the tune of $109 million USD are frozen because restrictions on movement of building materials prevent breaking ground on 24 constructions and infrastructure projects. If it took nine months to negotiate the start of each of the 24 projects, we’d be looking at 18 years of negotiations.

• We’ve written before about Israel’s refusal to allow books, stationery, toys, and other educational materials for 248,000 students in Gaza, although it makes an exception for other students studying in UNRWA schools. But UNRWA alone, whose schools generally operate three shifts to deal with overcrowding, needs to build 100 schools to meet demand, and Israel refuses to allow the building materials to enter. Even if Israel were to agree to allow in the building materials and if it takes nine months to negotiate the construction of each school, UNRWA would have its schools after about 75 years, about the time that today’s children would be in their 80s.

We are encouraged that the MFA report seems to embrace the need to facilitate humanitarian aid, while encouraging the development of a healthy economy in Gaza. If Israel is truly interested in implementing such a policy, it would be advised to open Gaza’s crossings for movement of goods and people, subject only to concrete security considerations and not political maneuvering.

This week the Israeli Foreign Ministry boasted that Israel has allowed “a large quantity of educational tools such as notebooks, backpacks, writing tools, and textbooks” into the Gaza Strip in the last month. The Foreign Ministry wrote that: “Through COGAT and the Gaza DCL, Israel makes great efforts to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip, and for this reason the recent transfer was facilitated at the request of the organization [UNRWA].”

“Great efforts” indicate the existence of great obstacles, and the obstacles are indeed great. But ironically, these are obstacles that Israel itself created when it decided that only goods required for maintaining the “humanitarian minimum” would be allowed into the Gaza Strip. And so the recent transfer of educational materials was “facilitated” by Israel’s deviation from its own sweeping policy – of obstruction.

Furthermore, in addition to the fact that the school year began in the Gaza Strip more than 2.5 months ago, the basic goods that Israel has now allowed in are destined only for schools operated by UNRWA, which comprise just one-third of all schools in the Strip – 221 out of 640 schools.

For 240,199 other school students – more than half the student population – who study at government and private schools, the Israeli ban on the import of paper and other basic educational materials remains firmly in place, just as it has been for the past 29 months.

The first storm of the winter hit Israel last week. Following a long period of drought, the plentiful downpour was greeted with joy, even though the stormy weather predictably caused flooding and damage. The rain and strong winds also hit Gaza, where residents found that they are particularly vulnerable in stormy weather.

Prior to the storm, international organizations warned of the poor conditions of the residents living in destroyed houses and tents and of schools with no windows. Special aid was allocated to prepare for the winter. The warnings were based on the well-founded fear that the ongoing supply situation would continue: since June 2007, Israel has blocked the entry of most raw materials into the Gaza Strip, even those urgently required to repair the heavy damage sustained in the war and to repair and upgrade the humanitarian infrastructure. The electrical system is in urgent need of hundreds of different parts which are either entirely out of stock or are down to minimum quantities only – parts that are waiting in the West Bank and Israel until the latter will permit their transfer to Gaza.

Nedal Toman, Engineer and Project Manager at the Gaza Electricity Distribution Company (GEDCo), said:  “We have bought all of the equipment we could find on the local market, even parts that do not meet the standards of the system but can at least be used as ‘band-aids,’ so that we can supply electricity to the people in the meantime.”

Indeed, the storm’s strong winds knocked out power for between 150,000 and 200,000 people, after the makeshift infrastructure was damaged . GEDCo warned that without spare parts and raw materials, Gaza’s entire electrical network is in danger of collapse.

Picture this: its 7:15am, 40-60 children are crammed into a single classroom ready for a new day of learning. Many of them have no exercise books, textbooks or even pencils. This scene repeats itself at 12:15pm, when the “second shift” starts in the same classroom, at the same school, with the same overcrowding and the same shortages (no, this is not Israel in the 1950’s; this is the Gaza Strip in 2009).

A total of 451,704 students went back to school two weeks ago in the Gaza Strip. The new school year promised more of the same struggle to cope, even at school, with the outcomes of the war and the closure imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip for the past 27 months. For over two years, Israel has refused to allow paper to be imported into the Gaza Strip (except to the UNRWA schools) since paper is not considered “essential for the basic existence of the population.”

The education system, already weakened by the closure, sustained a severe blow when 280 schools and kindergartens were damaged during the war, including 18 schools that were completely destroyed. And there is no possibility of rebuilding them, since cement and building materials are also unnecessary for the “basic existence of the population.” Some 12,000 students who attended the destroyed schools were forced to look for new schools and this has led to an increase in the number of students at other schools, to more than 60 pupils in some classes. At present, almost 90% of the 221 schools operated by the UNRWA in Gaza and more than 80% of the 383 state schools are forced to operate in “shifts” in order to cope with the large number of students.

In the northern Gaza Strip alone, the destruction of 15 schools left 9,000 students without a place to study. Some 4,000 of them were placed in just 2 schools.

At the top of the list of goods that Israel won’t allow into the Gaza Strip are construction materials which can be used to repair the heavy damage sustained during the war and to rebuild the schools that were damaged and destroyed. As billions of dollars earmarked for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip remain unspent due to Israel’s policies, Israel has chosen a strange way to “teach Gaza a lesson.”