Israel's announced modification of its blockade of Gaza

Cross-posted with Informed Comment Global Affairs.

Israel's decision to adjust its punitive blockade of Gaza is mainly intended to deflect international pressure that has grown since May 31st, when Israel commandeered the aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine activists.  The Israeli announcement, incidentally, came in English and was not repeated in Hebrew according to Haaretz.

The blockade has been severely criticized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is an organization that goes out of its way to maintain a neutral stance, which it feels allows it to function effectively in conflict areas.  When it does take a position based in international law, it does so in a measured way.  Thus, the ICRC's finding that Israel vis-a-vis Gaza is not meeting its responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and is practicing "collective punishment" is important.  Furthermore, the ICRC has reiterated its position that the blockade is not merely a humanitarian issue.   Israel's "closure" of Gaza denies the people living there the opportunity to sustain normal economic opportunity and development. 

Of course, the blockade of Gaza was progressively tightened following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 with significant encouragement and support from the U.S. government.  The point was precisely to undermine the credibility of Hamas and sow discontent among Gazans.  After the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006, and especially after Hamas thwarted Fatah's (U.S. supported) effort to topple it from power in 2007, Israel was even more invested with keeping the blockade in place.

Israel is now betting that by adjusting the arbitrary terms of reference for the shipment of food and consumer goods into Gaza, and by permitting limited construction to occur, it will be able to keep the blockade in place.  Perhaps so. 

My own reaction to Israel's decision is quoted in part in the Washington Post.  My full comment follows:

Israel's government is attempting to retain the blockade of Gaza by allowing international NGOs to import some raw materials while denying Gazans the materials they need to reconstruct their simple homes, to move out of tents and hovels into barely adequate homes. If Israel was serious about improving the living conditions of Gazans, it would stop preventing the exports of agricultural goods and allow the strip's simple manufacturing sector to resume making and selling everyday essentials. This latest decision by Israel is an arrogant in-your-face to the US and other concerned members of the international community. Watch the US government spokespersons for their reaction. If they commend Israel, then you may discount Obama's commitment to Middle East peace making heavily. 

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, described the newly announced adjustments to the blockade as only "a step in the right direction."  Obama has described the Gaza humanitarian situation as "unsustainable."  Gibbs repeated that yesterday.  Will the U.S., in concert with the EU, keep up the pressure to end the collective punishment of Gaza and allow the Gazans to attempt to create a viable economy, or will the pressure ebb?  It is obviously too soon to tell, but one lesson of recent weeks is that absent diplomatic pressure, the status quo will continue.

A skillful diplomatic effort led the U.S. would end the punitive blockade, and lend renewed momentum to the flagging efforts of George Mitchell.  It is hard to imagine such an effort succeeding without the release of Gilad Shalit, a move toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and an effective long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.   That is a tall order, but Obama's aides insist he is deeply committed to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Israel's deadly fiasco at sea condemned but what next for the U.S. and its "eternal ally"?

Even with overnight arm twisting by the U.S. the U.N. Security Council "Presidential Statement" leaves no doubt that Israel is being condemned for its seizure--in international waters--of the Gaza-bound flotilla.

Middle East Report Online provides by far the most valuable brief on the flotilla and Israel's response.

Notwithstanding Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's claim that the Israeli commandos were armed only with paint guns and side arms, Israel has once again demonstrated its penchant for disproportionate force and its contempt for international law. While the "Free Gaza" flotilla has been prevented from reaching Gaza with its cargo of humanitarian supplies, the political purpose of the convoy has been largely achieved. Israel (with Egyptian complicity) blockades Gaza from sea, land and air, and has done so since 2006 when Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. Israel's commando fiasco at sea draws world's attention to the blockade and its humanitarian consequences for the 1.5 million civilians of Gaza (Israeli officials claim the situation in Gaza is good). Here is the relevant paragraph from the Presidential Statement:

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

This is moment when Barack Obama's diplomatic mettle will be put to the test. Will he seize the moment to deliver a stern wake-up call to the "eternal ally"? Even Israel's Mossad head, Meir Dagan, recognizes that Israel is becoming a burden for the U.S. Will Obama?

Jimmy Carter interview, including comments on the Gaza war

"Were you surprised by the eruption of war in Gaza?

"No, I could see it coming. I went there [last] April and helped to work out the cease-fire that began on the 19th of June and that was obeyed almost completely by the Palestinians for five months. Israel didn’t do what it promised to do: provide adequate food and medicine and so forth. When I saw that the cease-fire was going to expire on the 19th of December, I went back over there. I spent a good deal of time in Lebanon because [the Carter Center] plans to monitor the Lebanese election, but I also went to Damascus and met with the Hamas people. They informed me that they would cease the rockets if Israel would start supplying the necessary food, water, fuel and medicine. My representatives made this proposal to Israeli leaders in the defense department, who said they would only supply 15% of the normal level of supplies [emphasis added]— the level that was maintained when Israel was in charge of Gaza, which is about 750 trucks a day."

Israel's retributive war in Gaza has its costs (Updated)

Other than the central relationship with the USA, no relationship is as strategically important as the link to Turkey. Thus, today's incident in Davos, in which Prime Minister Erdogan emphasized Israel's attacks on civilians will be a cause of deep concern in Tel Aviv.

Turkish PM walks off stage over Gaza - Yahoo! News

Updated:
President Shimon Peres:

"Why did they fire rockets? There was no siege against Gaza," Peres said, his voice rising in emotion. "Why did they fight us, what did they want? There was never a day of starvation in Gaza."

Erdogan in Wapo.

Israel has blocked currency transfers into Gaza, so who do you think benefits?

At present, the restrictions imposed by Israel on Gaza include not only essential supplies and building materials, but even shekels. Indeed, in the first days following the war, the only significant supplies of currency in public hands was controlled by Hamas, which had smuggled the money in through the tunnels. Since Hamas took over the Gaza strip in 2007, Israel has allowed only three shipments of money to enter since June 2007. Since Israeli shipments into Gaza must be paid for with currency, the currency shortage also a direct impact on trade.
Yet another example of how Israel's blockade of Gaza undermines its own objectives, unless the objective is deprivation.