Last week Israel proudly boasted of a sharp increase in the transfer of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. This announcement coincided with the publication of a statement of concern by the European Union regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, noting that there has been no improvement since January 2009, when the war ended.

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?

Amr Hamad, Deputy Director of the Palestinian Federation of Industries, came to Ramallah from the Gaza Strip last week to help assess the damage to the business sector in Gaza as a result of the last war. He told a Gisha representative that the European Union is considering compensating factories, business facilities and other institutions for the damages they sustained, estimated at $45 million (U.S.). EU representatives apparently understand the problematic nature of a situation where European tax-payers are to be sent the bill for damages caused by the Israeli army, and they have decided not to call it compensation, but rather a “business reactivation” plan.

The economy in Gaza, which has been virtually shut down for over two years, sustained a serious blow last January: 1,135 business facilities were damaged, including 324 factories.

Hamad adds that it is unclear how it will be possible to reactivate businesses while a ban on the import into Gaza of raw materials remains in place, and considering that the factories that were most severely damaged were those processing metals and construction materials. Israel is still adamant that construction materials pose a threat to its security and therefore are banned from entering Gaza.

As Israel continues active discussions, in the media and amongst institutional players about whether the claims of war crimes in the Goldstone Report require further investigation, another recommendation made by the Goldstone Commission  has been pushed aside: the recommendation that the closure of the Gaza Strip be immediately lifted and that the free passage of people and goods be allowed.

Despite calls from the EU that the “cycle of destruction and reconstruction” needs to be broken, and the huge amount of money amassed for the reconstruction plan, only 7% of the factories in Gaza are currently operational, Hamad reports. These are the few that are able to acquire raw materials and are not dependent on selling to markets outside the Gaza Strip.