This is Reliefweb’s portal to solid, sector-by-sector information about the humanitarian situation i the Occupied Palestinian territories.
Through there you can go to this March 19 report from the UN’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on the humanitarian impact of the closures of the Karni (al-Muntar) crossing. It stated,
- Gaza requires 450MT of wheat each day to maintain bread supplies. The usual 30-60 day wheat stock kept in Gaza is exhausted. Other basic food commodities are in extremely short supply including dairy products and fruit. Rice and sugar are selling at more than twice their normal price and are also very difficult to find in stores.
Karni crossing (al Muntar) is the only source to import large-scale quantities of wheat and the commercial terminal for imports and exports of goods from Israel. As of today, Karni crossing has been closed 46 days or 60% of this year. (Four of the days (10-13 January — ‘Eid al Adha) were due to Palestinian decision making. ) In comparison, in 2005, Karni was closed for a total of 18% of the year and 19% of the year in 2004.
United Nations organisations are facing similar constraints. UNRWA has been unable to start its emergency food distribuition today because of insufficient wheatflour supplies. The World Food Programme reports that 3,594 MT of wheatflour contracted to local mills were unable to enter Gaza during the recent brief period Karni was opened.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) state that the reason for Karni’s closure is the suspected presence of tunnels dug by Palestinian militants leading to the crossing. The IDF contends that it will not open the crossing until the Palestinian Authority (PA) digs several trenches to intercept these tunnels. Palestinian security services, at the request of the IDF, have dug four trenches, totalling more than 1.5 kilometres in length around the crossing, in an effort to find these tunnels. So far, none have been found.
The report also has a helpful-looking timeline. It makes depressing reading, mainly detailing how many times the IDF demanded that the Palestinians dig ever deeper and deeper trenches in order to discover those oh-so-elusive “tunnels”. The only possible trace of possible tunnel-start was discovered on 20 January:
- 5 January: The IDF requests the Palestinian Authority (PA) to dig a trench west of the Karni crossing to intercept a possible tunnel leading to the crossing. The PA starts this work the same day, digging a 6 metre trench approximately 1km in length.
20 January: The PA completes the trench. According to the IDF, one tunnel was discovered, while according to the PA, a small hole, possibly the start of a tunnel, connecting to a water pipeline was discovered.
That trench was 6 meters deep. Later, the IDF demanded that the PA dig three more trenches, one of them “10m in depth, 300m long,” Still no further evidence of anything even possibly resembling tunneling was found…
Helena,
Place yourself in the position of an ordinary Israeli. A good question for you, standing in that position – not in some immune location where you really are – is: What, morally speaking, is owed to people who would, if they could, kill you? My contention is: Not much.
I think what you are doing is reprehensible and immoral. No one is going to starve. However, the Israelis have every right to convince Palestinians of the cost of choosing a party which believes only in fighting and eschews conferences and peace talks and believes that no one other than a Muslim has any rights anywhere.
Now, as for tunnels. Do you deny that such tunnels have existed? So, why is it so incredible that HAMAS, with Israel out of Gaza (i.e. so it is not, legally speaking, occupied) would pursue the course it has stated it prefers, namely, armed struggle? And, in order to have an armed struggle, you need weapons and bombs, lots of them. So, it is you who are being naive or intentionally naive.
Neal
“with Israel out of Gaza (i.e. so it is not, legally speaking, occupied)”
The land, sea and air access to Gaza is controlled by Israel, ergo, Gaza is occupied. By your logic, if soldiers surrounded a neighborhood, they only occupy the perimeter and not the neighborhood itself.
“What, morally speaking, is owed to people who would, if they could, kill you? My contention is: Not much.”
I agree with your contention. However, you owe it to yourself to ask “why do they want to kill me?” and “how many Palestinians fall into that category?”
By honestly considering these questions you best ensure your safety and protect your rights.
observer,
The aim to kill Israelis because they do not agree to fold into the great Muslim project. Read the HAMAS covenant. It says that rather explicitly.
observer,
One other point. I use the word “occupied” as it is used in International law.
1) No flour beacuse Palestinians attack the entry points.
2) Too many strawberries because Palestininans attacked the exit points.
Maybe they should eat strawberries until they realize that they have a choice between bread and bombs.
Neal
Not all Palestinians adhere to the Hamas covenant. Why should they all be humiliated and brutalized?
There are hate mongering fascists in Israel. Should all Israelis be treated accordingly?
Davis
“Maybe they should eat strawberries until they realize that they have a choice between bread and bombs.”
That sounds good. Let them live with the consequences of their actions. Once they bear the true brunt of their policies, they will come to their senses and change.
The same applies to Israel. No more U.S. aid, until they realize that they have a choice between bread and the occupation.
Honestly, Neal and David (uh, sorry “Davis”), I feel very sorry for you.
How many Palestinians have you ever met, Neal? On what basis do you make the judgment that all 1.4 million residents of Gaza “would, if they could, kill you?”
Your powers of reason and of engaging in rational discourse seem paralyzed by irrational fear. (See “Pass the smelling salts!”)
And then…what is it that I do that you find “reprehensible and immoral”? You don’t even bother to explain. All you do is fulminate.
I posted here some excerpts from a UN humanitarian report and a paraphrase of some other parts of it. Is it this that you find “reprehensible and immoral”?
Here’s a suggestion, friend. Either gather up your courage and go and talk to a few Palestinians, wherever you are. Ask them about their lives. You might be surprised to discover that they are human beings like you and me… with their own stories, foibles, catalogues of joys and sorrows. Or, if you’re too paralyzed by fear to do that, go visit some Palestinian websites. You could start with Laila’s, which is linked to on the sidebar here. Just read it. See how it is to be a working mom trying to raise your toddler in Gaza these days…
Also, you’re not such an expert on international law. Gaza remains occupied under international humanitarian law until the point that Palestinians have sovereign control over the access of people and goods to it. Other than “occupied”, the best term for the current situation is probably “Bantustan.” But in fact, the Bantustans had a lot more powers of self-rule than what the Gazawis have right now…
observer,
I shall grant you that not all Palestinians are for the HAMAS program. But, frankly, HAMAS rules. It is the governing authority. Its existence cannot be ignored, by Israel or by Palestinian Arabs.
You say, why should those who did not vote for HAMAS suffer because of those who voted for HAMAS? My answer is rather simple: in war – and HAMAS claims to be at war with Israel in order to massacre all of its Jewish citizens and unwilling to end its dispute with Israel -, the population has the choice to follow the leader into the abbyss or to stand against the leader.
Where is Palestinian Arab protest against HAMAS? Absent real resistance, political or otherwise, I think the thing to say is that Palestinian Arabs, including those who did not vote for HAMAS, were not particuarly displeased by the election, in effect, of the Muslim version of the Nazi party.
I have not seen any Palestinian Arab protests against HAMAS. Have you?
HAMAS’ program is eliminationist in its Antisemitism. It is also that way toward homosexuals and is rather nasty toward women. It proposes Jihad as the way and, in reality, opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, calling historic Palestine a Muslim waqf (i.e. a land held in trust for all the Muslim ummah) – something radically different -.
Let us move back in history. In the Civil War, should the US have allowed the South to leave the Union without a fight, because not all Southerners wanted to leave the Union? In WWII, should the West not have fought the Nazis because not all Germans voted – in fact, a far smaller percentage than Palestinian Arabs who voted for HAMAS – for the Nazis? I think not.
I think the issue here is that you do not like Israel. And in that dislike, you take the view that Israel must put up with the Muslim equivalent of the Nazi party, all without sending any message to Palestinian Arabs that they have stepped across a threshold into eliminationist – genocidal – territory.
Helena,
Well, the issue here is not whether Palestinian Arabs are friendly and have interests and goals and foibles. I would not any of that.
The issue is that they refuse compromise.
Now, Jonathan seems to think that Gaza is not occupied. And, if you read the ICJ opinion, the definition listed renders Gaza non-occupied. That is good enough for me.
As I said, Palestinian Arabs – not all but enough (to be fair to your point – would kill off the Israelis if they could. That, frankly, is the only explanation for the particular approach they have taken. Let me quote Sari Nusseibeh:
We’re telling the Israelis that we’re going to kick you out: it’s not that we want liberation, freedom, and independence in the West Bank and Gaza, we want to kick you out of your home. And in order to make sure that the Israelis get the message, people go into a disco or restaurant and blow themselves up.
(Quoted in a letter in the Fall 2002 edition of Dissent Magazine).
If you do not understand that much, then you really are rather odd.
As for the Bantustan nonsense, I note that the Palestinian Arabs have dug their own mess. They ought to have taken the December 2000 compromise proposal from President Clinton. That is the one which Prince Bandar claims met Arafat’s redline. He, as Bandar said, lied about the proposal to the entire world, including his own people. That proposal should have ended the dispute. You might check the State Department for a copy of what President Clinton dictated. Alternatively, you can find the gist of it on the website of the Saudi Arabian Embassy to the US. They seem to think it a good proposal, as it met all of the issues that bother you.
In the above comment, the sentence which reads “I would not any of that” should read:
I would not deny any of that.
Neal
Why doesn’t Israel pull out of the occupied territories, build secure borders and be rid of all these problems. Israel effectively defends its border with Lebanon. The military usefulness of occupying the West Bank and Gaza are negligible.
Israel should pull its forces back and fortify its borders. If attacked, they respond harshly. This strategy has worked with Hezbulah in Lebanon. It may work even better with the Palestinians given that Lebanon borders Syria, while the two countries bordering the occupied territories are at peace with Israel.
No need to negotiate with Islamo-Fascists. Leave them alone and retaliate if attacked.
“I think the issue here is that you do not like Israel.”
I don’t care to like to dislike any country but my own. I think in terms of U.S. interests and its not in our interests to support Israel’s occupation. If Britain re-occupied Ireland, I would feel the same way about them.
Neal,
Place yourself in the position of an ordinary Palestinian.
observer,
You write: “Why doesn’t Israel pull out of the occupied territories, build secure borders and be rid of all these problems. ”
That is what Israel is doing. The key term, however, is secure borders. The Armistice line is not a secure border. The Israelis want a slight modification in the area around Jerusalem.
That was their position in the Oslo process and such view was said to be acceptable with the PA. The devil, of course, was in the details and, further, the PA demand that Israel, not the PA, be where the children of the refugees be moved.
Shirin,
I am happy to place myself in the position of the Palestinian Arabs. The issue here is that the Palestinian Arabs fail to adopt a rational position in order to settle the dispute. So, even people in a tough position need to be rational if they are to obtain something.
I overlooked the word “particularly” in my post, as in “particularly around Jerusalem.”
Okay, Neal, time’s up on this comments board. You’ve posted 8 of 15 comments prior to this one and thus greatly contravened what the guidelines say about abstaining from discourse-hogging.
Saying the same thing over and over doesn’t push the discussion any further forward. (It also doesn’t make it “true.”) Feel free as always to start your own blog elsewhere in cyberspace and express yourself there. I will even allow you to post ONE link to it here.
Helena,
Fair enough. I was not familiar with your rules. Also, I was responding to comments. I did not know that you discouraged people from responding.