Upstream | June 12, 2010 | 19 comments

“Smoking Gun” Proves Israeli Siege of Gaza Isn’t About Security « SpeakEasy

Image
Monkey_Films
I’ve tried to hammer home the point that the brutal siege of Gaza has nothing to do with Israel’s “right to defend herself.” On Monday, I wrote:

For supporters of the siege, the value of the defense argument is simple to grasp. Intercepting weapons is a military objective. In international law, an occupying power has broad leeway in the use of force to accomplish military objectives. The siege of Gaza is, and always was, meant to crush Gaza’s economy, impose severe suffering on the population and ultimately make it impossible for Hamas to govern. The Israeli government has not hidden this fact. As J Street put it, “Israeli officials have repeatedly characterized their blockade policy in the following terms: ‘No prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.’” When the siege was first imposed, Dov Weisglass, an adviser to then Prime-Minister Ehud Olmert, explained, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

The blockade’s objective is political, not military. It’s a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza (approximately half of whom are under 18 years of age). It is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. It’s a serious crime. And the world is calling for Israel to bring it to an end, not to stop intercepting weapons.

Last week, I explained why it’s a serious crime here. When we published those pieces, we got the usual flurry of outraged feedback — accusations of hopeless bias, running ridiculously skewed analyses and delegitimizing Israel out of sheer, irrational animosity.

But on Wednesday, McClatchy reported that it had obtained an Israeli government document that leaves no further doubt about the true goals of the Gaza blockade. It is, as I have said, collective punishment for electing Hamas, a gradual strangulation of the people of Gaza — young and old, innocent and guilty– under an intentional man-made humanitarian crisis.

McClatchy:

As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.
[...]

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

“A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using ‘economic warfare,’” the government said.

McClatchy obtained the government’s written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn’t imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.

[...]

The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn’t be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but “could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control” of Gaza.

[...]

Israel’s blockade of Gaza includes a complex and ever-changing list of goods that are allowed in. Items such as cement or metal are barred because they can be used for military purposes, Israeli officials say.

According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month.

The figures show that Israel also has limited the goods allowed to enter Gaza to 40 types of items, while before June 2007 approximately 4,000 types of goods were listed as entering Gaza.

As I wrote earlier this week,

The Israeli government is an occupying power that exercises “effective control” over Gaza. Some have argued that Gaza is an independent entity at war with Israel, and the Israeli Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Israel “had no commitment ‘to deal with the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to allow unlimited amounts of goods and merchandise’ to pass through, but only vital and humanitarian goods.”

But outside of Israel it’s not a serious claim. According to the United Nations, “Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem [are designated] as Occupied Palestinian Territory… that definition hasn’t changed.” The United States government, Israel’s closest ally, says unambiguously: “West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement… permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.”
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Random,   Current Tonight,   9 more
  2. tags:
    Israel Palestine Gaza Security 5 more
  3.     
    |

19 comments // “Smoking Gun” Proves Israeli Siege of Gaza Isn’t About Security « SpeakEasy

  • acontradiction
  • Monkey_Films
  • freecrack
  • Monkey_Films
  • freecrack
  • Monkey_Films
    • +2
      Monkey_Films  
    • freecrack:

      I would agree with you that at an early age they haven't been completely perverted yet. However, by the time they reach the age of consumerism, they could care less who dies if it keeps their stuff cheap. That's imperialism at it's best.

      I like that you're working harder to prove your opinions now. You can thank me later.

    • 1 year ago
  • freecrack
    • -2
      freecrack  
    • Monkey_Films:

      pat yourself on the back, you have surpassed any arrogance i have ever encountered.you now have the title.you think you deserve thanks for ideas i formulated before ever interacting with you.you are so arrogant as to think my ability to reason is a retroactive result of your efforts.do me a favor though can you break the news to my parents that it was you not them, i dont have the heart to.

      consumerism is a distraction.if you want to claim that we are an imperialist society (still wrong) we would have to be in conquest of land aquasition, wich we are not.
      consumerism is pacification.just as drugs are.just as hollywood is.none of wich result it imperialism, or even relate to imperialism.
      based on creating a method of distraction equals an offense you can tag anything you want with it.you could say we are facist cuz we purchase peoples will
      we are nazis cuz we purchase peoples will
      one has nothing to actualy do with the other.

      if anything we are eco terrorists directly using consumerism as the means of social validation.bp fucks up, we get mad,but keep using oil, cuz god forbid we shared transportation, or dare i say walked someplace.thats the closest way our consumerism is a mechanism of control.

    • 1 year ago
  • freecrack
  • Monkey_Films
    • +2
      Monkey_Films  
    • freecrack:

      You can't make the connection between consumerism, the desire for cheap oil and products, and the need to ignore the killing our government does to assure we keep our 'American Dream'. Come on now, you're just arguing to argue now.

    • 1 year ago
  • freecrack
    • -1
      freecrack  
    • Monkey_Films:

      even if we desired that everything must cost no more than a penny from candy to houses, imperialism doesnt create that.in fact if anything we are the opposite, as we are invading countries,seemingly at random,without ruling them to our benefit, while spending billions of dollars a day in this endevour.

      our conquest of the middle east to supposedly rape iraq and afganastan for oil(wich is a lil funny as iraq has none worth taking, remember they tried to take kuwaits) has only resulted in a steady increase of the price of oil regardless of civil war or not.and you can bet your ass it will keep going up as it always does.and in the end no person in this country equates conquering land, to cheaper anything.just more territory to waste money, and lives on.

    • 1 year ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • +1
      Monkey_Films  
    • Image
    • freecrack:

      False, Imperialism doesn't have to have anything to do with money. Power and control are enough to be Imperialists and the conquering of foreign lands without justification. Besides that, we do indeed use our conquests in order to make money in many and sometimes complicated ways but we do indeed reap benefits from our conquests.

      New Imperialism refers to the colonial expansion adopted by Europe's powers and, later, Japan and the United States, during the 19th and early 20th centuries; expansion approximately took place from the French conquest of Algeria to World War I ( 1830 - 1914). The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed "empire for empire's sake," aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in some colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which purported to explain the unfitness of backward peoples for self-government.

      Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism has been described as a primarily western concept that employs "expansionist – mercantilist and latterly communist – systems."[

      Try reading the Age Of Imperialism (An on-line history of the United States) in addition to the definitions of Imperialism above.

      http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/toc.html

    • 1 year ago
  • freecrack
    • -2
      freecrack  
    • it doesnt matter what reason one derives for the gaza blockade as it has simply decreased terror attacks greatly.end of story.
      the kinneset may have sat down and created the blockade just cuz they felt like being dicks, but in the end it serves its pupose thus validating its continued existence

    • 1 year ago
  • acontradiction
  • Monkey_Films
  • freecrack
more from Upstream:

top videos