WikiLeaks document on Gaza blockade puts Israel’s flotilla hasbara to shame

As the second “Freedom Flotilla” to Gaza attempts to overcome the various obstacles in its way, the Israeli security establishment is busy trying to confuse people about the economic situation in Gaza.  There’s just one big problem with their strategy:  a cable written by a U.S. diplomat about the Gaza blockade makes any Israeli propaganda claim about the Gaza Strip moot.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently said that the flotilla of ships set to sail to break the Israeli naval blockade was unnecessary because “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”  Similarly, Israel Defense Forces chief Benny Gantz told a group of Israeli reservists that Palestinians in Gaza are “importing televisions and plasma screens, and exporting agricultural products to the entire Arab world.”

The message, in so many words, is that life in Gaza is just fine, and that there is no need for flotillas to challenge the Israeli blockade.

But this State Department cable, published by WikiLeaks and written in October 2008 from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, should put the kibosh on Israel’s claims about the economic situation in Gaza (my emphasis):

Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis…

While the [Israeli government] believes that maintaining the shekel as the currency of the Palestinian Territories is in Israel’s interests, it treats decisions regarding the amount of shekels in circulation in Gaza as a security matter. Requests by Palestinian banks to transfer shekels into Gaza are ultimately approved, partially approved, or denied by the National Security Council (NSC), an organ of the Israeli security establishment, not by the Bank of Israel (BOI). As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge

What the cable reports–that Israel is deliberately keeping Gaza’s economy “on the brink of collapse”–is exactly why the “Freedom Flotilla” is seeking to break Israel’s blockade.

It hasn’t gotten any better since that cable was written.  This June 2011 report from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency details the human cost of the Israeli siege on Gaza:

As the Gaza blockade moves into its fifth year, a new report by the UN’s agency for Palestine refugees, UNRWA, says broad unemployment in the second half of 2010 reached 45.2 per cent, one of the highest in the world. The report released today, finds that real wages continued to decline under the weight of persistently high unemployment, falling 34.5 per cent since the first half of 2006.

“These are disturbing trends,” said UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness, “and the refugees, which make up two-thirds of Gaza’s 1.5 million population were the worst hit in the period covered in this report. It is hard to understand the logic of a man-made policy which deliberately impoverishes so many and condemns hundreds of thousands of potentially productive people to a life of destitution.”

Those facts–Gaza’s dire unemployment and Israel’s deliberate strategy to keep it that way–are why Israel will have to keep facing flotilla after flotilla until the blockade of Gaza is no more.

Human Rights Watch: Israel and Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes in latest fighting

Judge Richard Goldstone’s article in the Washington Post continues to attract attention from many different quarters, and has put the question of war crimes committed in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009 back in the spotlight.  But what hasn’t received nearly enough attention is that the latest round of fighting in the Gaza Strip has resulted in more war crimes, according to a report from Human Rights Watch.

Hamas’ attack on an Israeli school bus “appeared to have deliberately fired at the school bus, a protected civilian object under the laws of war, in an act that amounts to a war crime,” the report reads.

The release from Human Rights Watch also includes details of four investigations they carried out into Israeli violations of the laws of war.  Here’s an excerpt dealing with one investigation:

In the first incident, on April 7, an apparent Israeli missile attack injured an ambulance crew member and damaged an ambulance marked as such while the crew was evacuating two men who had been wounded in an Israeli strike. The attacks occurred near the non-operational Gaza Airport, in the southeastern corner of Gaza, east of the city of Rafah and close to the Egyptian border. Reliable independent security reports said that an Israeli tank had previously fired at the area, wounding two men, and that a helicopter later fired missiles at the area.

The ambulance driver, Musa Obayyed, 35, told Human Rights Watch that the crew received a call at around 5:45 p.m. to evacuate several wounded men from the area. Obayyed said that the area was not in the “buffer zone” near the perimeter fence, where medical crews need to coordinate access in advance by contacting the International Committee of the Red Cross, which then coordinates with the Israeli military.

“The sky was full of different kinds of military aircraft at the time, but we didn’t hesitate, and the area was full of civilians when we arrived,” he said. “We were several meters from an injured man and were just about to get out of the ambulance when an explosion hit next to us.”

The attack injured Hassan al-Hela, 41, a member of the medical crew, in his right forearm, and blew out two of the ambulance’s windows. The crew did not observe what fired at them, but the only Israeli fire reported in the area that afternoon and evening was from tanks and aircraft. There were no reports of Palestinian rocket or mortar fire in the area at the time. Human Rights Watch observed numerous small holes of between three and five millimeters in diameter in the side of the ambulance at the Red Crescent Center in Khirbat al-Adas, where the crew had taken it. The damage appeared consistent with shrapnel from a small missile. Human Rights Watch was not able to examine shrapnel from the strike, but the damage was consistent with small, cubic shrapnel from the aerial drone-launched missiles that Human Rights Watch examined during the 2008-09 Gaza conflict.

Customary laws of war provide that medical units, including paramedics and ambulances, must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Medical workers engaging exclusively in medical work in the presence of combatants do not forfeit their protected status, and only lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. A deliberate attack on a medical crew or an ambulance being used solely for medical transport would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war, amounting to a war crime.

“The laws of war have protected medical personnel from attack for nearly 150 years,” Whitson said. “Israeli responses to Palestinian attacks cannot show reckless indifference to civilians.”

Read the full release here.

Is Israeli Decision to Have PA Supervise Exports Out of Gaza First Step in Plan Revealed by WikiLeaks?

Israel yesterday announced an expansion of exports out of the blockaded Gaza Strip, a small but welcome step in the ongoing efforts to break the crippling blockade.

But perhaps that’s not the most important news to come out of the announcement.  What could have more significance is that Palestinian Authority (PA) “inspectors will begin to work in the Kerem Shalom crossing, and oversee the collection of import taxes and the export of goods from Gaza to the West Bank,” according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.  “This would mark the first return of Palestinian Authority officials to the Gaza Strip since the Hamas takeover in June 2007.”

The recently released State Department cables by WikiLeaks add important context behind the decision to have the PA return to Gaza.

Hamas, which runs Gaza, has not yet publicly reacted to this news.  But it’s sure to be unwelcome for the Islamist movement, who have so far resisted any suggestions that the PA be allowed to operate in Gaza.  Since the brief civil war between Hamas and Fatah in 2007, which came as a result of the U.S. arming and encouraging Fatah to take over Gaza despite Hamas having won the 2006 Palestinian elections democratically, reconciliation talks between the two sides have been ongoing.  They have so far failed.

At the same time of the reconciliation talks, both Hamas and Fatah have been arresting each other’s supporters and party members, further driving a wedge between the parties and the territories they govern, which has long been an Israeli priority.

What emerges in the WikiLeaks State Department cables is a realization that Israel and Egypt’s long-term plan for Gaza, backed by the U.S., is to have the PA return there.  Might the Israeli decision to allow exports out of Gaza and to have PA officials supervise the Kerem Shalom crossing be a first step in attempting that goal?

One of the most explosive revelations relating to Israel/Palestine that has come out of WikiLeaks is the cable that shows that, about five months after the end of the 2008-09 Israeli assault, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told the U.S. that he had “consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas.”

Other cables show similar entreaties by interested parties, all of them wanting to strengthen the PA.  The head of Egypt’s intelligence services, Omar Soliman, told the U.S. in July 2009 that “Egypt’s three primary objectives with the Palestinians were to maintain calm in Gaza, undermine Hamas, and build popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.”  Another cable from 2007, states that Benjamin Netanyahu said that “Israel and the U.S. should focus on ‘bringing down Hamas’ through an ‘economic squeeze.’”

The cables show an intent to subvert Palestinian democracy and strengthen the PA at the expense of Hamas.  The wishes of the PA returning to power in Gaza, expressed in the State Department cables, may now partly come true with the latest Israeli decision on exports out of Gaza–but only at the expense of the Palestinian people, who still find themselves politically divided while Israel’s occupation and land confiscation grinds on.  Unilaterally installing the PA at a Gaza crossing won’t help.

WikiLeaks Revelations About Israel/Palestine Counters Conventional Media Narrative

As Peter Hart of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting notes, “WikiLeaks document dumps are largely what media want to make of them,” and the major U.S. newspapers have so far played up the WikiLeaks revelations about Iran and various Israeli and Arab officials’ alarm over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

The headlines on two New York Times articles read:  “Around the World, Distress Over Iran,” and “Iran Is Fortified With North Korean Aid.”  The Washington Post, whose overall coverage of the classified diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks has been lacking, has a piece titled, “Netanyahu says WikiLeaks cables show Arab states share Israeli concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

But that’s not all the latest documents from WikiLeaks show about politics in the Middle East.  Other leaked cables that have so far been ignored by mainstream media concern Israel’s perception of the Palestinian Authority (PA)–perceptions that undermine the conventional narrative on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and relations.

The conventional narrative, which closely follows establishment discourse on Israel-Palestine, is that Israel and the Palestinians are engaged or have been engaged in “peace talks” with the goal of bringing about a Palestinian state in the near future.  The Palestinian Authority and Israel are in conflict with each other over issues such as building settlements in the West Bank.  While these talks go on, the West Bank is enjoying an unprecedented period of economic prosperity and a stable governing entity that can bring about a Palestinian state.  Articles about this diplomatic tango dominate U.S. media coverage of the region because that’s what elites in the U.S., Israel and Palestine are engaged in (see, for example, here, here, and here from the New York Times).  In sum, mainstream media coverage is much more about the “process” than the “peace” when it comes to discussing the so-called “peace process.”

If media would report on them, the diplomatic discussions that have been revealed by WikiLeaks add much needed context to understanding the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

You wouldn’t know it from reading major U.S. papers, but the Palestinian Authority essentially functions as a subcontractor for the Israeli occupation, and WikiLeaks confirms this fact further.  For instance, the PA’s security forces have been used to drive Hamas, the Islamist movement that was democratically elected in 2006 and controls the Gaza Strip, underground, as Hamas opposes (violently in some cases) engaging Israel in “peace talks.”  In the immediate run-up to PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s direct talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the PA cracked down harshly on Palestinian dissidents who opposed the resumption of negotiations with Israel.

From a number of WikiLeaks documents, we learn that Israel is quite happy with the PA, though worried about its long-term political viability, and even attempted to coordinate the brutal 2008-09 assault on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip with the PA.

In one cable from 2009, Amos Gilad, an Israeli defense ministry official, is quoted as saying “that Israeli-PA security and economic cooperation in the West Bank continues to improve as Jenin and Nablus flourish, and described Palestinian security forces as the ‘good guys.’”  Another cable from 2007 quotes Netanyahu as candidly saying that the “entire Palestinian economy [is] based on graft and patronage,” which runs contrary to the rosy descriptions of the West Bank economy Americans routinely hear from the likes of Thomas Friedman.

But don’t expect media to report on this.  It would prove that “peace talks” and the diplomatic tango that accompanies them, which is all the media reports on, is a facade.

Coalition of Human Rights Groups Call Israel’s Gaza Bluff

View this document on Scribd

A large, international coalition of human rights groups released a report (embedded above) yesterday examining the ongoing and illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip and whether anything has changed post-”Freedom Flotilla.”  The answer is that not much has changed.

In the aftermath of Israel’s illegal attack on the Gaza-bound “Freedom Flotilla,” international attention was focused on the situation in Gaza.  In early July, responding to international pressure, the Israeli government announced an “easing” of the blockade.  The “easing” measures included promises of the allowance of more consumer products into Gaza and allowing the entry of construction materials for projects approved by the Palestinian Authority (which has no power in Gaza).  This new report has a handy chart looking at the promises made post-flotilla and how they match up to reality.

The report indicates that Gaza remains in dire straits, with an economy strangled to death, a lack of construction materials to build homes and schools that were destroyed by the 2008-09 Israeli assault, and a population “locked in” with no way to freely enter and exit the Gaza Strip as they please.

The human rights coalition concludes the publication with an urgent call to the international community:

The international community must do its part to ensure that its repeated appeals to end the blockade are finally heeded.

1) Launch a new, concerted diplomatic initiative for an immediate, unconditional and complete lifting of the blockade, including:
• allowing movement of people including humanitarian staff into and out of Gaza;
• allowing exports from Gaza;
• allowing entry of construction materials including those for the private sector;
• allowing entry of raw materials;
• expanding operations of the crossings;
• lifting restrictions on fuel imports;
• ensuring access to Gaza’s agricultural land and fishing grounds and the protection of civilians in these areas.

2) Convene a meeting of the UN Security Council to review the implementation of Resolution 1860 which emphasises “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation.” Further action necessary for its implementation should be considered.

3) Plan a visit to Gaza as part of every high-level visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.

4) State explicitly that the ongoing blockade is illegal under international law.

5) Support genuine investigations into, and accountability for, violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law committed by all parties, including the Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups as a way to prevent future violations.

‘West Bank First’ Approach Failing Miserably

Elliott Abrams, one of the key players in the attempted U.S.-backed coup in 2007 to install Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party as the sole Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has a short piece in Foreign Policy arguing for more of the same “West Bank first” approach to Palestine.

Abrams’ suggestion has been in place since the end of the Bush administration’s second term, and it has produced absolutely nothing good.

The “West Bank first” approach refers to the policy, first begun by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, of showering the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank with aid, international backing and training for security forces in an attempt to weaken the Hamas-run government in Gaza by drawing a stark contrast between the living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza.  The approach also further legitimizes the decades-long Israeli goal of separating the West Bank from Gaza, therefore precluding the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

Not only is this approach undemocratic and dismissive of Palestinians’ electoral choices, it is also failing miserably.  Hamas is doing a much better job at governing than the Palestinian Authority.

Professor Menachem Klein, an Israeli who teaches at Bar-Ilan University, writes today in Ha’aretz:

A question: Which government functions better, that of Salam Fayyad in the West Bank or that of Hamas in the Gaza Strip? Answer: The Hamas government. Another question: Which of the two governments would stop functioning without foreign aid? Answer: The West Bank one.

Ismail Haniyeh’s government functions well, despite the blockade of Gaza, the diplomatic boycott and the lack of assistance from large international organizations. Fayyad’s considerable personal abilities, the success of his technocratic government in improving living conditions in the West Bank, the excellent foreign relations maintained by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the extensive aid Fayyad’s government receives have not created a more effective government than the one run by Hamas. These are the conclusions of a new study by Dr. Yezid Sayigh from King’s College, London.

Furthermore, the popular belief that the Hamas regime is brutal while the Abbas-Fayyad government is democratic is also mistaken. Hamas came to power in real, democratic, internationally-monitored elections – a process unprecedented in the Arab world. By contrast, President Abbas’ legal term of office ended long ago, yet he has not left office.

 

 

Ignoring International Law, Ethan Bronner Writes that East Jerusalem, Golan Heights ‘Count as Israeli territory’

Nestled in this all over the place article written by Ethan Bronner in today’s New York Times is this factually challenged nugget:

Both East Jerusalem and the Golan were officially annexed by Israel through parliamentary votes, so by Israeli law they count as Israeli territory. That is not true of the West Bank, which the Palestinians want as their future state and where Israel has settled more than 300,000 Jewish citizens.

That paragraph is in the middle of an article that, in part, is about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support for a bill that would require a national referendum in Israel on giving up the occupied territories.

Bronner’s reporting gives readers no substantive understanding of why East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a huge part of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  Those territories, captured by Israel during the 1967 War, were indeed unilaterally annexed by the Israeli government.  So it’s true, as Bronner writes, that they “count as Israeli territory” under Israeli law.

But not under international law, which is really the relevant body of law to look at when discussing Israel/Palestine.  This is how the United Nations’ Goldstone report describes East Jerusalem:

After 1967, the two areas [referring to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip] were administered directly by military commanders until 1981 and since then through a “Civil Administration” established by the Israeli armed forces. “Military orders” were used to rule the civil affairs of the Palestinian population superimposing and often revoking pre-existing Jordanian laws in the West Bank and Egyptian laws in the Gaza Strip. East Jerusalem was annexed to the Israeli municipality of the city and in 1980 the Knesset passed a law which declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. With Security Council resolution 478 (1980), the United Nations declared this law “null and void”, condemning any attempt to “alter the character and status of Jerusalem”.  No member of the United Nations, apart from Israel, recognizes the annexation of East Jerusalem.

This is how UN Security Council Resolution 497, passed in the aftermath of Israel’s declaration of the Golan Heights in Syria as falling under the laws, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel, characterized the Syrian territory:

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,

1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The whole focus on whether Israelis will voluntarily give up illegally occupied territory is irrelevant.  International law is crystal clear, and it doesn’t bend to the popular will of Israeli citizens.