Doc's Talk: The rise and fall of the Gaza blockade

Friday, December 10, 2010

The rise and fall of the Gaza blockade

FRIMET ROTH

This month, we learned that the closure will, for all intents and purposes, expire. And nobody, not even Schalit activists, has uttered a syllable of protest.

Last week, 21 aid groups launched a high-profile PR attack entitled “Dashed Hopes” directed at the blockade of Gaza. Aside from the disproportionate focus on a problem far overshadowed by starving populations elsewhere, the illustrated nine-page document suffered from a glaring omission: mention of Gilad Schalit.

The Gaza blockade was born exactly one year after Schalit’s capture by Hamas militants. It was imposed in response to Hamas’s political takeover of Gaza in June 2007. However, it soon acquired an intrinsic connection to the campaign to free Schalit even though its full potential as leverage was never tapped.

In February 2009, it was still a nominal bargaining chip in Israel’s dealings with Hamas. Eli Yishai, then deputy prime minister, stated: “Israel is facing a serious humanitarian crisis and it is called Gilad Schalit and... until he is returned home, not only will we not allow more cargo to reach the residents of Gaza, we will even diminish it.”

In June 2009, US Middle East envoy George Mitchell advised a reversal of that policy, but Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu refused.

In July 2009, leaders of the campaign to free Schalit demonstrated at the Erez crossing, blocking the passage of food and medicine to the Gaza Strip.

When the government announced an easing of the blockade after the Mavi Marmara flotilla affair, Noam Schalit railed at Netanyahu: “And where is Gilad in this whole story?”

YET THIS month we learned that the blockade will, for all intents and purposes, expire. And nobody, not even Schalit activists, has uttered a syllable of protest.

This may be the natural outcome of years of brainwashing. We have been bombarded, by the media and by some politicians, with the message that Schalit must be freed “at any price.”

No number of convicted terrorists is too high and no risk of future deaths is too grave.

“Yes, at any price” wrote Haaretz columnist Yoel Marcus in June 2008.

“Gilad Schalit must be released at any cost,” chimed in his colleague Gideon Levy in December 2009.

In December 2008, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “We may have to make tough decisions on that matter [the release of prisoners with blood on their hand] as well.” Journalist Eitan Haber has been a particularly staunch advocate of a mass prisoner release. In July 2010, he wrote: “The people who were once celebrated IDF generals... and later became prime ministers – freed many more terrorists in prisoner swaps than our ‘civilian’ prime ministers... Maybe they attributed supreme value to comradeship, and the notion that ‘Israel will do everything.’”

In March 2009, a Dahaf public opinion poll showed that 69% favored releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners if it would bring Gilad home.

This month, in an interview with the Associated Press, Maj.-Gen. Eitan Dangot – a key policy maker in relation to the Palestinian areas – unveiled upcoming stages in the termination of the blockade.

Come spring, he promised, Israel will open the gates of Gaza to textiles, furniture and agriculture as well as allowing more exports.

The interview covered various details of the new policy and the rationale behind it. Yet Dangot failed to mention Gilad Schalit even once. He made no demand for his release or even for a first Red Cross visit.

The idea that Gazans are suffering a “humanitarian crisis” has long been popular in anti-Israel circles. But as Dangot knows full well, photographs of well-stocked Gazan shops, the grand openings of a new mall and of an Olympic-sized pool have put the lie to that. Recent critiques of the blockade do not speak of a humanitarian crisis.

Instead, they hunt for ills they can pin on the blockade. A November Huffington Post piece bemoaned “creeping restrictions on women’s freedom imposed by Hamas,” and the “the erosion of women’s freedoms compounded by their lack of participation in politics.”

But the bloggers concluded that this is Israel’s fault: “The blockade... is hampering women’s efforts to... advance gender equality.”

With similarly baffling illogic, in an October 2010 Haaretz column, Amira Hass dismissed as an “apocryphal legend” the fact that the blockade was imposed in reaction to Hamas’ rise to power and to its terror attacks. “Go back and open Gaza’s gates” she urges.

THE TRUTH is that the Left is banging on open doors. Policy-makers led by Dangot are doing a fine job of eliminating the blockade – and very transparently too. They are confident the media will gloss over the news, and that the public will remain apathetic.

Why have the attempts to free Schalit failed?

The major error has been to navigate only one course toward Gilad’s freedom: haggling over the list of terrorists to be released. The blockade, even when still officially in effect and defended by our government, was never strictly enforced. Supplies were routinely allowed into Gaza. Thousands of ill Gazans and their companions were admitted to Israel for medical treatment.

And if Schalit’s own government is happy to make unilateral concessions to his captors, why should foreigners, humanitarian organizations or the UN agonize over him?

But if Dangot expected kudos for shrinking the blockade, he must be disappointed. Following his interview, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton had a litany of complaints about the matter. “Gaza remains a source of great concern for me... we think that what’s happened with Gaza is unsatisfactory,” she concluded on behalf of all EU foreign ministers.

Ashton made no reference to Gilad Schalit.

The very next day, Lynn Pascoe, chief UN political affairs official, joined the chorus. His monthly briefing to the Security Council stated that the priority of the UN is still “the rebuilding of a viable Gazan economy,” and that the process would begin with “the resumption of exports, free movement of people into and out of Gaza, the return of the Palestinian Authority to the crossing... [and] the timely entry of construction material.”

Pascoe did not utter the name Gilad Schalit.

One week later, “Dashed Hopes” made headlines.

According to most sources, Hamas is refusing to free Schalit because Israel is digging in its heels over the release of 15 Palestinian prisoners. One of those is Ahlam Tamimi. She is serving 16 consecutive life sentences for her role in the 2001 terror bombing of Jerusalem’s Sbarro Restaurant. Fifteen civilians died, eight of them children, one of them my daughter Malki.

“I’m not sorry for what I did,” Tamimi said two years ago from her cell. “We’ll become free from the occupation, and then I will be free from prison.”

The Gaza blockade is a worthy alternative to the dangerous option that Israel is pursuing. We must protest the opening of our borders with Gaza, or our children could soon face a free Tamimi again.

Can we risk that?

The writer is a freelancer in Jerusalem. Her daughter Malki was murdered at 15 in the Sbarro restaurant bombing (2001). She and her husband founded the Malki Foundation (www.kerenmalki.org) which provides concrete support for Israeli families of all faiths for home care of a special-needs child.

Thanks Ronit

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk