A Humanitarian Implosion

Life is grim in Gaza. According to a report (.pdf) published today by eight human rights NGOs based in the UK, including Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Oxfam and Save The Children UK, "[t]he situation for 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is worse now than it has ever been since the start of the Israeli military occupation in 1967."

It concludes that,

"[i]n terms of poverty, food aid dependency, humanitarian access, unemployment, access to basic services and medical supplies, we are witnessing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Though the situation was already dire, it has become "exponentially" worse as a result of the "extreme" sanctions imposed by Israel and the international community. As UNRWA chief Karen Koning Abu Zayd put it,

"Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the knowledge, acquiescence and – some would say – encouragement of the international community."

The report describes nothing less than the "impoverishment of an entire population." 80% of Gazan families are reliant upon international food aid, compared to 63% in 2006. This figure is set to "sharply rise" if the current situation continues.

The Gazan economy "is no longer on the brink of collapse - it has collapsed." With the private sector (.pdf) devastated (3,500 out of 3,900 factories have closed in the last six months), unemployment is close to 40% and set to reach 50%. A typical household now spends 62% of its income on food, compared to 37% in 2004. In the four months after Hamas took control of Gaza in June 2007, the mean household spending dropped by 22% and the number of households living below the "deep poverty line" of $2.30 a day jumped from 55% to 70%.

The report continues:

"Movement in and out of Gaza is all but impossible and supplies of food and water, sewage treatment, and basic healthcare can no longer be taken for granted. As a result of the blockade and collapse of the economy, there is little money to buy food and limited food to buy. Food prices are rising and wheat flour, baby milk, and rice, among other essential goods, are increasingly scarce. During the period of May-June 2007 alone, these commodity prices rose 34%, 30% and 20.5% respectively."

In short, Gazans are living in a "prison", and their jailers are systematically reducing their lives to utter misery.

The international blockade is "destroying public service infrastructure", with Israel's restrictions on fuel and electricity greatly exacerbating the crisis. Hospitals are barely functioning, while Israel's "attack on basic services" is "systematically destroying the water and sewage infrastructure of the Gaza Strip":

"Hospitals cannot generate electricity to keep lifesaving equipment working or to generate oxygen, while 40-50 million litres of sewage continues to pour into the sea daily."

Healthcare in Gaza has "dramatically deteriorated" over the past six months. As a result of Israel's restrictions on fuel and electricity, hospitals are "experiencing power cuts lasting for 8-12 hours a day", and there is a "60-70 percent shortage reported in the diesel required for hospital power generators."

Access to healthcare abroad is critical for the Gazan population, as treatments such as chemotherapy are not available in the Strip. The proportion of applicants given permits to exit Gaza for treatment decreased significantly after Hamas took control of Gaza. This, together with several reports that Israel has conditioned permits on patients giving information on suspects, suggests that Israel is in many cases refusing to allow critically ill Palestinians access to treatment in Egypt or Israel on purely political grounds. Between October-December 2007, the World Health Organisation confirmed the deaths of 20 patients, including 5 children, after Israel refused to issue them permits to receive medical treatment abroad. Other sources have put the figure much higher, and the true figure will likely never be known.

We know from previous experience that sanctions as extreme as these hit the young, the old and the frail particularly hard - in Iraq, for example, the sanctions regime killed up to a million people, half of them children. Here too the impact of the blockade on Gazan children, who comprise 56% of the population, has been "enormous". One indicator of their suffering is the "nearly 80% failure rate" among pupils in grades four to nine, with a 90% failure rate for Mathematics. This in a society well known for placing high value on education.

The NGOs conclude that Israel's blockade has "effectively dismantled the economy and impoverished the population of Gaza." It constitutes "collective punishment" and is "illegal under international law."

The report emphasises that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is "man-made, completely avoidable and, with the necessary political will, can also be reversed." Noting that the current strategy "is failing at all levels" (in fact I'd say it has largely succeeded, the above being the intended result of U.S./Israeli policy), it calls for an end to the blockade, a resumption of normal deliveries of fuel and electricity and a peace process involving "political dialogue with all Palestinian parties." As Henry Siegman writes,

"It's time to take advantage of Hamas's offer of a mutual cease-fire that would not only end the killing in Gaza and the West Bank and the rocket fire on Sderot and Ashkelon, but also prevent a potentially calamitous escalation threatened by Barak.

Such a cease-fire would also offer an opportunity to refashion - with the collaboration of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab countries - a Palestinian unity government that could resume peace talks on a more realistic foundation. To be sure, Olmert and Barak will rail against such a course, but a majority of Israel's public favors reaching out to Hamas.

What hope there is for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement before the two-state option evaporates depends on the United States finally screwing up the political and moral courage to use its considerable leverage with Israel and the Palestinians to return them to a path of sanity."

Unfortunately for everyone, particularly the terrorised population of Gaza, it looks as though Israel and the U.S. remain determined to destroy Hamas as a political organisation, no matter the cost.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

•  tip jar .nt

  by heathlander on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM PDT

  •  Olmert does this for a domentic political boost

    The creuler Israeli leaders are to the Palestinians the higher their popularity in Israel's predominantly hard line/right wing political culture.

    by Lefty Coaster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  Thank you for reporting.  With everything happening today, I have not had a chance to read the NGO report.  So thanks for distilling it.

  Hopefully both sides will recognize that the lack of a truce is getting a lot of people on both sides killed.

  by weasel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM PDT

  •  The World, all of us,

    should hang our heads in shame. We watch and do nothing as these people die.  There was a group of women from Palestine touring the US giving talks to groups. One was a christian, one an arab, and one a jew. They told of the people who die at the crossings because soldiers turn them away from and do not let them seek medical care. It was carried on "Democracy Now."

    by Owllwoman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM PDT

    •  "We watch and do nothing as these people die"

      Not quite - we are in fact actively involved in killing them ('we' being the U.S. and the EU).

      by heathlander on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:26:37 PM PDT

•  aw hell

  Hamas manages to smuggle into Gaza thousands of tons of weapons, maybe they should bring in some food and consumer goods instead

  and speaking of smuggling weapons:

  does Hamas's so called cease fire offer include additional manning of the Gaza/Egypt border making sure no more weapons get smuggled in///otherwise what's the point?

  It'll only delay an inevitable, more deadly future conflict

  ''

  you've got the Iran/Hamas factor which severely complicates any chance for a Palestinian unity gov't. Good luck with that.

  by Keith Moon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM PDT

  •  Okay

    So that is a pretty clear voice against cease fire and in favor of continuing bloodshed on both sides.

    How does everyone else stack up?  Do you join with 65% of the Israeli population in calling for a ceasefire with Hamas, or do you join with the Keith Moon company in favor of bloodshed?

    by weasel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM PDT

    •  I am with you weasel. Seeing that dead month old

      baby yesterday on TV was more than I could handle.

      by Owllwoman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM PDT

    •  i should've added a poll. next time. /nt

      by heathlander on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:25:26 PM PDT

•  Ceasefire talks

  Egypt was today hosting talks with the militant groups from Gaza to try to broker a ceasefire.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

  by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM PDT

•  Mohammed Omer's observations from Gaza:

  Through the streets of Jabaliya refugee camp, the nauseous smell of burning tyres mixes with the sickening smell of singed flesh. Houses gutted by bombs teeter on their foundations. Ambulances race through the camp, sirens screaming as they collect the critically injured and random body parts strewn around the streets.

  Electricity no longer functions. Clean water is scarce. Families crouch in cubbyholes and makeshift shelters, huddled around small handheld radios, listening, praying, hoping for an end. This is Israel's "Hot Winter", its latest intensified assault on the people of Gaza and its most recent attempt to rout Hamas.

  At Jabaliya's Kamal Adwan Hospital, a steady stream of wounded pour in, the lucky still in possession of life and limbs. Frantic family members vie for attention from exhausted emergency staff. An ambulance arrives. Inside a man clings to life, though much of his skin has been plastered on the streets by an F-16. Mercifully he is unconscious.

  With just two operating rooms, Kamal Adwan's surgeons struggle to attend to the admitted while performing triage on the arrivals. Blood coats their uniforms. The scene is of organised destruction and a determination to save lives despite the odds. As the surgeons work, an orderly wheels in another victim. This young man arrives in a coma, bleeding profusely from multiple shrapnel wounds delivered by an air-to-ground missile. The doctors desperately attempt to stem the bleeding.

  Suddenly all eyes are raised to the ceiling. Outside, the thwop-thwop-thwop of a helicopter gunship envelops the medical sanctuary, its vibration deafening. Moments later, a thud followed by Boom! Boom! Ka-boom! The Israelis are shelling again close by. Stressed and exasperated, those waiting scream. Some cry, while others sit blank-faced in shock...

  Read the whole thing here.

  by heathlander on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:07 PM PDT

  •  Trying to find a link

    but on the BBC radio news today they mentioned that the daily requirement for humanitarian food aid was the equivalent of something like 250 truckloads. The Israelis are apparently only allowing through something like 170.

    Update: found the detail and I was wrong.

    Supplies to Gaza, intended to be 250 trucks a day, are limited to 45 trucks a day.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

    by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:36:30 PM PDT

•  I'm just going to say, blah

  Obviously siege warfare doesn't get anyone anywhere, in terms of the interests of Kadima, of Likud, of Hamas, of Fatah, of Arab civilians and Israeli civilians who are just tired of all the stupidity and such and mostly want to know that when they lay their heads down they won't be blown up during the night (or the next day).

  I don't think diplomacy can either, though.

  The Israeli government, under any party, will find it incredibly difficult to uproot unlawful settlements. It is that unpopular. Soldiers don't like doing it, either - it's like going in and evicting your parents from their home at gunpoint, only of course you can't shoot them even if you think you really have no choice.

  Any PA-territory government, under any party, will find it incredibly difficult to maintain security such that the number of attacks launched from PA territory is cut to a vanishing few. Even if the government in question wanted to, weapons have gotten smaller and easier to handle, per unit destructive power. They'd be swimming up a technological waterfall. And there's not yet a way to stop rockets in flight, either.

  A two-state solution that provides both Israel and a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity is impossible, but I seem to recall a Palestinian mover&shaker saying that non-contiguity of a Palestinian state is a nonstarter - a bit of a problem, isn't it. A one-state solution is certainly not acceptable to the Israelis, because Israel's charter would be effectively meaningless. The question of return of refugees faces essentially the same problem as the one-state solution.

  So here are problems that seem insurmountable. I can't see any way around them, without the Arabs destroying the Israelis. (I leave out any possibility of the Israelis wiping out the Palestinian Arabs, because they have neither the intention nor the ability to do so, nor would it be especially meaningful to say that you were going to do so.) I don't see any way of Israel allowing itself to be destroyed except by lashing out at all its neighbors, or at least its unfriendly ones, at the end. So, I guess what I'm saying is, life's a bitch, then you die, and you might be full of nuclear fallout and exotic pathogens when you do.

  by Shaviv on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:55:50 PM PDT

  •  re contiguity and Palestinian governments

    I think Palestinians tend to make greater, stronger demands than what they would actually be willing to settle for. Contiguity sounds like one such demand, and I think Hamas's non-recognition of Israel is another. I never heard of the demand for a contiguous territory before now. And I think it would be fair to call it a cultural difference, and maybe also a technique of negotiation--Middle Eastern culture is fond of hyperbole and this is how bargaining tends to work. I'm not suggesting people simply dismiss the violent language of Hamas, e.g., but I do think they are unlikely to maintain irredentist policies when presented with a credible promise of territorial sovereignty.

    but I seem to recall a Palestinian mover&shaker saying that non-contiguity of a Palestinian state is a nonstarter

    The problem with Palestinian leadership is that it hasn't been able to deliver results to the people, and has lost support. Thus you get these groups like al-Aqsa Martyrs and IJ violating ceasefires, and then Hamas, to try and put pressure on Israel that the PA hasn't been willing to put.

    So there is a real gap there that needs to be filled, and could be filled, if we can get a Palestinian government in place that is actually somewhat responsive and not corrupt, and wins meaningful concessions from Israel--thinking of the settlements especially. The ones in Gaza, which, while (I think) much less extensive than the W Bank ones, were abandoned. So it is possible. And there could probably be some compromise like Israel keeping some of the settlements adjacent to its border.

    Of course when a treaty is made, Israel will have to abide by it as well, unlike the way it dramatically  expanded settlement construction during the 90s. That kind of thing will be a non-starter, and clearly hasn't helped Israel's credibility.

    by klizard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:56 PM PDT

    •  That's a much more hopeful take.

      I hope you're right. I'm going to meditate on that over supper. Hmm.

      by Shaviv on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:48:09 PM PDT

    •  You make interesting points

      The culture of negotiation:

      Middle Eastern culture is fond of hyperbole and this is how bargaining tends to work

      I believe this description applies to all parties to the conflict. While it is poorly understood in the United States, it is well-understood both by extreme and moderate elements in the Israeli and Palestinian communities. Unfortunately, it results in a much more protracted and difficult negotiation process.

      Given this culture, one can only speculate where each party is actually willing to compromise. History provides some clues, as you noted in citing Israel's abandonment of the Gaza settlements, but it is often hard to find people agreeing on how to interpret history in this region.

      The failures of leadership:

      So there is a real gap there that needs to be filled, and could be filled, if we can get a Palestinian government in place that is actually somewhat responsive and not corrupt, and wins meaningful concessions from Israel--thinking of the settlements especially.

      In order to achieve a resolution, both the Palestinians and the Israelis will have to find leaders who are willing to compromise and are strong enough to carry public sentiment with them. Moreover, both communities will need to have those leaders in place at the same time.

      Public sentiment tends to support the peacemakers until there is another episode of violence, and then a reaction sets in. If there is anything we can do, it would be to support the peacemakers and defuse support for the extremists.

      I think that means criticizing both the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and the Palestinians who use rockets, bombs and guns to attack Israeli civilians. If we are to promote an atmosphere in which the parties can reach an accommodation, we also have to be willing to object to anyone who puts all the blame on one side, or who excuses (or at least "explains" without condemning) the conduct of the extremists who keep promoting confrontation.

      by word is bond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

  •  Contiguity is a red herring

    Contiguity looks important on a map, but on the ground it is much less meaningful.

    The world is full of nations with non-contiguous elements. Island nations such as Indonesia, Fiji and Cape Verde are most obvious. Some nations contain mainland and island elements, such as Malaysia and Equatorial Guinea, or non-contiguous mainland elements, such as Russia, Oman, several of the members of the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Angola. There are numerous enclaves and exclaves along the Swiss borders with Germany and Italy.

    Heck, in the United States, Alaska and Hawaii are non-contiguous with the other states.

    Some nations that appear contiguous on a map contain uninhabited stretches separating the populated communities. Anyone who has crossed Australia or even Western Ontario can envision this.

    Wikipedia contains a list of  enclaves and exclaves that any fan of political geography will appreciate.

    The key to viability seems to be that the territory (land or water) separating non-contiguous areas does not prevent passage between those areas.

    How does this apply to the area that would comprise a Palestinian state alongside Israel?

    First, secure and uninterrupted access between non-contiguous areas must be assured. Peace proposals offered in negotiations usually include a secure overland connection betweent the West Bank and Gaza passing through Israel. Similarly, the much-maligned new roads connecting Palestinian areas around Jerusalem, often via tunnels, would actually provide effective overland links for the Palestinian territories.

    Second, a realistic assessment of the terrain will help observers appreciate the concept of contiguity.  Maps of the West Bank typically show that the towns and villages have irregular and serpentine shapes that correspond to the hills and valleys of the region, reflecting the reality of habitable and arable land separated by land not susceptible of such use. Along a future convoluted border between Israel and Palestine, particularly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Qalqilya, these intervening areas may be used to provide internal links for Israeli and Palestinian communities.

    by word is bond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:45:34 PM PDT

    •  In fact, the World Bank and other organisations

      have emphasised that a territorially contiguous West Bank is an essential requirement if the Palestinian state is to be viable. The Palestinians have insisted and will continue to insist on territorial contiguity because - surprise, surprise - they are not willing to accept a few isolated prison camps connected by roads to call a "state".

      But if you think that is an acceptable solution, let's demand it of Israel.

      by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:25:49 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, contiguous W Bank is a whole other matter

        from the W Bank and the Gaza strip being connected by a strip of territory. Of course they should be connected by some kind of road that Palestinians can use relatively easily.

        For the W Bank it's not just a matter of being contiguous territory, it's a matter of people not being practically imprisoned in cities or between settlements.

        by klizard on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:30:47 AM PDT

        •  Actual proposals for a contiguous West Bank

          have been extensively diaried here, notably by another American. Borrowing from his diaries, links include this map based on the Clinton parameters. See also the unofficial joint Palestinian-Israeli Geneva Initiative.

          These proposals envision a West Bank that is not subdivided into cantons and from which most Israeli settlements have been removed. Some Israeli settlements along the Green Line near Jerusalem and Tel Aviv would be retained by Israel in a 1:1 land swap, and would result in convoluted borders along some stretches of the Green Line, but not in loss of contiguity or loss of freedom of travel for the population on either side of the border.

          by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

          •  Thanks for links, I'll look at them later. n/t

            by klizard on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM PDT

      •  Straw man

        The strawman of "isolated prison camps connected by roads" is not a reply to my comment. If this is a description of the current situation, it has nothing to do with the vision for a two-state solution that has been proposed and has a chance of being adopted.

        Any possible two-state solution (and you know this have been extensively diaried here) is based on only two non-contiguous land areas, Gaza and the West Bank, connected by a guaranteed overland link.  It also contemplates a very convoluted border in some areas, such as the environs of Jerusalem; although the Israeli and Palestinian areas would each be contiguous on the map, their lines of communication could be shortened by roads running through the other area.

        The distance between the Gaza strip and the West Bank is only about 25 miles. If they are connected by a guaranteed route, how can anyone seriously claim that this distance is an impediment to viability? It hardly seems to matter whether the intervening area is desert, sea, or Israeli territory, provided that the right of passage is inviolate.

        In addition to a land bridge, moreover, modern communications technology provides means of connecting geographical areas that did not exist a few years ago.

        With a little vision, one could see the Palestinian land bridge as a vital link between Egypt and the Arab world east of the Jordan River, a vibrant contributor to the Palestinian economy.

        If the future promise of the Palestinian people is being held hostage by its leadership's demand for contiguity on a map (as opposed to practical connectivity of travel and communication) then it's time to find new leadership, leadership with vision, leadership you say "Yes, we can".

        by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:57:53 AM PDT

        •  If your comment referred to contiguity

          within the West Bank, as well as contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza, then my reply wasn't a straw man at all. If you were only talking about territorial contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, then yeah, I misunderstood.

          Re. contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank: you're right to call it a "red herring", in the sense that it's absolutely not an issue that is blocking a peace settlement. The problem on that front is territorial contiguity within the West Bank, which Israel refuses to agree to and indeed is daily desroying through settlement expansion, land "expropriations" and roadblocks/checkpoints.

          by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM PDT

          •  OK

            I guess this thread, which started with Shaviv, was never clear about which contiguity was at issue. He wrote:

            A two-state solution that provides both Israel and a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity is impossible, but I seem to recall a Palestinian mover&shaker saying that non-contiguity of a Palestinian state is a nonstarter - a bit of a problem, isn't it.

            I started from the assumption that territorial contiguity on the West Bank was a given, and that territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza was not an achievable goal.

            To achieve peace, I believe Israel is going to have to withdraw or abandon settlements that divide the West Bank into cantons. (While I know many people doubt Israel will do this, I am more optimistic.) I should have explicitly stated this assumption.

            Instead, I focused on the awkward configurations along the Green Line that will result if land is swapped to give Israel some settlements within the West Bank that are adjacent to Israel's pre-1967 territory. Strictly speaking, the Israeli and Palestinian states would enjoy territorial contiguity, but the internal roads would have to take circuitous routes. That's why I got interested in the possibility of local roads running short distances through each others' territories.

            I think the eventual peace agreement is going to require some creative thinking. I'm intrigued by the proposal for resolving one element of the Israeli-Syrian border dispute by creating a peace park. In some places, granting sovereignty to one party but a long-term lease to the other party might be a way to bridge differences. If I am right in recalling that you are a lawyer, you may have other ideas of this type.

            I feel that Israelis and Palestinians have been trapped by thinking in the same ruts for too long, and that's one reason why there are so many psychological roadblocks to peace. I cherish two convictions: creative approaches can be found to the issues that seem insoluble, and whatever "final status" results from successful negotiations will only be the beginning of a future evolution in relations that could lead to further improvements in the situation.

            by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM PDT

            •  OK, there was a misunderstanding

              no time to reply to this in detail now (i disagree with your point about "psychological roadblocks", for example), but for the record, I'm not a lawyer.

              by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM PDT

              •  Fine. I'm glad we both took time to clarify. n/t

                by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary.

  It's good that people are posting regular updates on this situation, what with the American press not covering it.

  by klizard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:19:17 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary, heathlander! n/t

  by Rusty Pipes on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:34:22 PM PDT

•  Israeli jets bomb trade union:

  'Two F-16 missiles were all it took to bring down the five-storey headquarters of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU).

  Mabhouh said theirs is not a militant organisation, but a "rights-based organisation open to all people from different political affiliations and locations. We have relations with many international trade unions." The building, he said, had come up with Norwegian money.

  "Targeting a civil organisation shows how barbaric and outrageous the Israeli occupation is," he said. "We are not launching rockets; targeting a labourers union building is not justified."

  The building, he said, had been used to offer health services to tens of thousands of workers and their families, through a workers union health insurance.

  "We strongly condemn this crime which aims to break down the Palestinian labourers, and call for all trade unions in the world to stand by us and protect the Palestinian labourers from such criminal practices."

  As always with such bombings, neighbouring houses were damaged as well in the attack.

  Palestinian officials estimate that Israel used two one-tonne missiles on this densely-populated civilian area, which explains the extensive damage to hundreds of flats around.

  The losses are significant: aside from one dead and 37 injured, mostly women and children, some of them in critical condition in Shifa hospital, there has been considerable damage to the structure of surrounding houses. Countless windows and doors were blown off, and the damage to weight-bearing structural walls mean that rebuilding will be necessary -- but impossible, due to the Israeli siege and lack of building materials.

  If the Israeli aim was to also terrorise the civilian population, it worked.' [my emph.]

  COSATU's response.

  by heathlander on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM PDT

•  There are two boycotts

  Gaza under Hamas is subject to two separate boycotts, albeit not unrelated.

  One boycott is by Israel, the other by the rest of the world, notably the EU, the US and Egypt.

  I think the entire situation would be improved enormously if the economic development of Gaza could receive substantial support.

  If that is to happen, and if the terrible conditions that now exist are to be alleviated, the authorities in Gaza might consider thinking about the two boycotts separately, and effectively address the possibility of ending the international boycott. One may understand Hamas' unwillingness to bow to the Israeli boycott, but its failure to engage the rest of the world is what leaves Gaza isolated. On a sheer cost-benefit analysis, the cost of addressing the international boycott is negligible in comparison to the benefits the people of Gaza would achieve.

  by word is bond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM PDT

  •  The rest of the world has refused

    to engage Hamas, explicitly. The international boycott and the Israeli boycott are all part of the same strategy, pushed primarily by the U.S., to topple Hamas. Hamas has offered a ceasefire in exchange for an end to Israeli military activities in Palestinian territory and an end to the boycott. This is clearly the way forward for anyone interested in peace and in easing the humanitarian suffering there, which explains why Israel and the U.S. have been so quick to reject it.

    by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:30:57 AM PDT

    •  The rest of the world has set conditions

      on engaging Hamas; it has not refused to do so. Hamas can meet those conditions without engaging Israel directly.  True, the result would benefit Israel, but it would benefit the Palestinian people even more.

      The United States under Bush can be expected to resist engaging Hamas.  However, the other members of the Quartet (EU, UN, Russia) should be expected to resume relations and funding if Hamas met the Quartet's three conditions.

      Considerable suffering could be alleviated, and progress toward peace made, if Hamas engaged with the members of the Quartet other than the US.

      Assuming that opposition from the US and Israel is an insurmountable roadblock provides cover for refusal to compromise where compromise is inevitable. The road to a sovereign Palestinian state living in dignity and prosperity is not paved with the words "no, we can't".

      by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:31:41 AM PDT

      •  Yes, conditions described by

        a former chief of Israel's military intelligence as "ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate."

        The laughably-named Quartet "principles" are absurd and hypocritical, and as suggested above were hurriedly formulated as a way to justify the quest to overthrow Hamas.

        I of course agree that the Quartet should try to engage with Hamas, as does every remotely sensible analyst of the conflict. The problem is not that Hamas refuses to talk, but that everyone else is refusing to talk to Hamas.

        by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:43:26 AM PDT

        •  Interesting article

          that you linked from the Forward. It's always good to see some pragmatic voices on both sides. I have to think about the article - at first read, it seems that on the one hand the three Quartet demands are described as unreasonable, and on the other hand Hamas is described as demonstrating willingness to comply with them (if not to make a declaration to that effect).

          by word is bond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:53:16 PM PDT

          •  The Quartet demands are reasonable

            as ultimate goals to work towards in the context of a final peace agreement. It's clear that in the context of a two-state settlement, all sides would have to agree to renounce violence and recognise each others borders.

            But as preconditions to negotiations, they are absolutely ridiculous and totally hypocritical, given that Israel is in clear violation of every one of them.

            by heathlander on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM PDT