by Eric Martin
Ezra Klein on some of the capricious parameters of Israel's enduring blockade of Gaza:
Israel, it seems, has been denying shipments of pasta headed for Gaza. Senator John kerry, who'd been visiting Israel, heard about the idle trucks filled with food aid and asked around. "Israel does not define pasta as part of humanitarian aid," he was told. "Only rice shipments." A call Kerry made to Ehud Barak quickly got the pasta added to the list of acceptable humanitarian aid. Comments from Representative Brian Laird helped lentils onto the list of officially allowed foods.
Matt Yglesias on subjects that are uncouth to discuss in polite company:
[S]top and think for a minute about how this looks through the eyes of a young Palestinian. Israel has the right to decide what can and can’t be sent to Gaza. Yesterday, pasta couldn’t be. Today it can. But what about dried beans? Cornmeal? What if I should want to send a box of Sour Patch Kids to Gaza—well, I probably couldn’t. That’s not bona fide humanitarian aid, and Gaza is under blockade. An act of war that targets the entire civilian population of the strip. And Israel’s Prime Minister says Israel can never agree to an independent Palestinian state. And the whole international community is okay with this. Nobody is trying to break the blockade. Instead, Palestinians are supposed to learn that terrorism is wrong (it targets civilians!) and that it’s important to recognize Israel’s right to exist. But somehow nobody wants to teach these lessons to the Israelis.
Yes, the blockade is...self defense apparently.
Great post Eric. What a disgrace to us all(international community, US government, and Israeli Government and people) Israel's policies are. Sorry that's such a botched sentence. I'm juggling too many things today.
aimai
Posted by: AIMAI | March 02, 2009 at 01:49 PM
Ah, dried beans. Yes the best "shrapnel" in those rockets raining down on those Israeli settments. Can't have that.
Posted by: watchinginwonder | March 02, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Nobody is trying to break the blockade.
No nations, you mean? Sadly, that seems to be true.
Volunteer groups have sent medical supply boats etc. to do so. None have been allowed to land.
Posted by: Nell | March 02, 2009 at 02:11 PM
Yes, I think "nations" was the intent there Nell.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 02, 2009 at 02:21 PM
That's not quite right. I'd forgotten about this last August, a momentary symbolic victory:
Boats Break Gaza Siege
Cherie Blair's sister participated, so the project accomplished more in the U.K. than here in raising awareness of the blockade.
Posted by: Nell | March 02, 2009 at 02:23 PM
McClatchy had a good overview article from last December about the blockade-breaking-boat campaign gaining traction. Acorns, oaks, etc.
The emphasis on medical supplies is meant not only to call attention to the blockade, but to highlight in particular the Israeli government's refusal also to allow people out of Gaza for medical treatment. Literally hundreds of Gazans have died after being denied permission to go to Israel or Egypt (which is co-operating with Israel in enforcing the sealing-off).
Israeli security officials have pressured Gazans to agree to spy in order to get through for medical treatment, which has the delightful effect of casting suspicion on the family of anyone who does manage to get through for treatment, whether they succumb to the blackmail or not.
Here's an account of what I believe is the most recent boat; it was turned back a month ago. This was the Muslim Brotherhood boat mentioned in the McClatchy article, which lends some plausibility to the reports (denied by Israeli govt) that the Israeli Navy fired on the vessel and beat the passengers after boarding it.
{note: because of delays between posting and appearance of comments, references in comments I expected to be back to back may be unclear. 'That's not quite right' above refers not to Eric's comment but to my own statement in a previous comment that no blockade-breaking boats have been allowed to land.}
Posted by: Nell | March 02, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Yeah, well, they know how to end the blockade, don't they? Stop launching missiles.
And they don't.
So, how much sympathy is really in order? A great deal for the little kids who suffer for their parents' bloodthirsty ways, sure, but for the adults?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | March 02, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Brett is totally correct. I mean, New Yorkers knew how to prevent another attack on the WTC: all they had to do was ensure that US forces left Saudi Arabia. But they didn't, so Osama gave them what they deserved. So much sympathy is really in order for those stupid New Yorkers? It sucks for the children, but their bloodthirsty and stupid parents deserved all the death and destruction they got.
I look forward to more instruction by Brett on that great moral philosopher O. B. Ladin.
Posted by: Turbulence | March 02, 2009 at 03:18 PM
The oppressive effects on the general population of the targeted country of putting almost everything on the forbidden list in a blockade with the excuse that the items are 'dual use' are familiar to those who followed closely the U.S. blockade/sanctions of Iraq in the 1990s.
A refresher for those who didn't.
Posted by: Nell | March 02, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Yeah, well, they know how to end the blockade, don't they? Stop launching missiles.
Actually, no. During the most recent cease-fire, the missile launches stopped at different intervals, but the blockade never did.
After the recent engagement in Gaza, after Israeli soldiers withdrew, the blockade, again, was not lifted.
Prior to the last engagement, and during that period's cease fire, missile launches came after airstrikes that targeted Hamas leaders - it was a tit-for-tat. Airstrikes that themselves were violations of the cease fire.
Which Israel violated more than 150 times.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 02, 2009 at 03:49 PM
Turbulence,
Bush learned the lesson, and pulled much of the American forces out of SA, and succesfully placed them in Iraq...
Posted by: SOD | March 02, 2009 at 05:40 PM
SOD, yes he did. Unfortunately, the great moral philosopher O.B. Ladin has made some other requests that the American government has failed to honor. Therefore, pursuant to Brett's logic, any further attacks on Americans by bin Ladin's followers will be justified.
Posted by: Turbulence | March 02, 2009 at 05:50 PM
One more potentially positive aspect of the blockade-breaking boats, from Los Angeles Times coverage of the arrival of the Dignity from Cyprus last October:
Posted by: Nell | March 02, 2009 at 05:57 PM
Yeah, well, they know how to end the blockade, don't they? Stop launching missiles.
And they don't.
Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. You might want to reconsider the sort of person you're keeping moral company with.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 02, 2009 at 06:53 PM
Yeah, well, they know how to end the blockade, don't they? Stop launching missiles.
And all Israel has to do to end the missiles is have a blockade!
Direct causation. Works every time!
Posted by: david kilmer | March 02, 2009 at 07:07 PM
"Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime."
Not when it is inflicted by the US or one of its allies--everyone knows that. Now, on the other hand, if you call for a mere boycott of Israeli universities (which I would not support, btw), that's rank anti-semitism--
Thomas Friedman
Posted by: Donald Johnson | March 02, 2009 at 11:34 PM
How is Israel preventing pasta from being exported by the Egyptians to Gazans?
This is a serious question. I think Egyptians have some say over what happens on their border to Gaza. As they're people are not being attacked by missiles and suicide bombers I assume Egyptians would be much more kindly disposed to send whatever Hamas will allow in.
And I'm sure Hamas will allow anything in that helps the suffering of the average Gazan. Anything.
Posted by: Pococurante | March 03, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Pococurante: Are you making an assertion, or just inuendo? If you are making an assertion, please state it and offer evidence to support it.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 03, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I asked a serious question. How is Israel preventing Egyptians to export to Gaza anything Hamas will accept to help common Gazans.
I'm not sure how much more clearly and objectively I can state the question.
Posted by: Pococurante | March 03, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Israel is not preventing that. Egypt has its own beef with Hamas, and is cooperating in the blockade (Muslim Brotherhood related beef).
However, Israel controls the better points of entry, including the seaports that are better suited to transfer large shipments of needed humanitarian supplies of food, medicine and fuel.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 03, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Eric, Egypt has a significant coastline along the Mediterranean and the Sinai peninsula. Its ports are some of the largest most heavily used in the history of the Western world.
http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/8/3/832dd45212545d3de6bbc02bb53b671c0c2786e3.jpg
You are asserting that a concentrated effort along thousands of miles of coastline in legal Egyptian waters from both the east and west can't compare to a few tens of miles coastline along Gaza.
I certainly take your point that Egypt has its own beefs with Hamas. But the point is what is the obligation to the average Gazan.
Week after week I read on Obsidian Wings the a constant emphasis on what Israel owes the average Gazan regardless of the actions of Hamas and foreign provocateurs.
I think there is merit to that but I'm trying to understand why Egypt would not take advantage of its thousands of miles of coastline, some of the most traveled international ports in the world, excellent national highways... to help the average Gazan.
Is not Egypt obligated by any humanitarian sense to help common Gazans? With even the most trivial of efforts the could could completely invalidate anything Israel can do over such a small place.
And I'm not finding the answer here. What I do hear repeatedly is that only Israel should be held accountable. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on a government which has simple political objections?
It can't simply be a matter of which country gets millions of dollars from the US. We give millions to both.
My questions are quite serious. I'm not insinuating anything. The questions are uncomfortable simply because the potential answers are unpleasant and not found here that often.
Posted by: Pococurante | March 03, 2009 at 11:57 AM
You are asserting that a concentrated effort along thousands of miles of coastline in legal Egyptian waters from both the east and west can't compare to a few tens of miles coastline along Gaza.
Not exactly. I'm saying there is no port along the Egyptian border with Gaza. There is a difference logistically.
Is not Egypt obligated by any humanitarian sense to help common Gazans? With even the most trivial of efforts the could could completely invalidate anything Israel can do over such a small place
No, Egypt could not completely invalidate Israel's actions due to the fact that Israel still controls air space and the vast majority of Gaza's borders. It could undermine the blockade, but it would not allow Gazans to cross borders, nor would it allow them to control their airspace, etc.
Israel is held to a different standard because they are doing most of the blockading, they are the ones firing missiles into Gaza and they are the ones leading armed military incursions into Gaza.
Egypt, thoug, deserves sharp criticism for its reprehensible behavior, but then the Egyptian regime has a very bad record in terms of human rights. It is not a democracy, nor does is it really considered as such by neutral observers.
Israel, on the other hand, aspires to be something better than the Mubarak quasi-dictatorship. As such, it will be judged by how well it meets those criteria.
If Israel wants to argue that it's really just the equivalent of Egypt in terms of commitment to human rights, justice and the rule of law, well, they can do that. But then Israel will be treated as Egypt's equal on these measurements.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 03, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Pococurante, I think the realworld answer to your question is: Egypt does not want to get into a fight with Israel, and via Israel, with the US.
Sure, Egypt could take upon itself the responsibility of defying Israel and help Gaza become a financially-independent nation with flourishing trade links with other countries, free to import what they cannot make or grow. They could make themselves leaders in the international support for Gaza: they could fundraise and help the Gazans build a harbour, take down the barriers and build a highway from Egypt to Gaza. They could defend their common borders from Israeli military incursions. They could shoot down Israeli planes that bomb the Gaza-Egypt border.
They could. In theory.
But, because they don't want to get into a war with Israel, they won't.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 03, 2009 at 12:12 PM
But, because they don't want to get into a war with Israel, they won't.
This is true, but there are other reasons as well. Egypt gets lots of cash from the US; we pay the Egyptian government for being at peace with Israel. If Egypt starts pissing off Israel, that cash supply is threatened.
Posted by: Turbulence | March 03, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Jes and Turb: Both true, but Egypt is also hostile to Hamas independently of that dynamic.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 03, 2009 at 01:44 PM
"And Israel’s Prime Minister says Israel can never agree to an independent Palestinian state."
Small factual correction: Netanyahu is Israel's past, and prospective, but not current, Prime Minister. Not yet. The Prime Minister of Israel, remains for now, Ehud Olmert. Until such time as Netanyahu can actually assemble a parliamentary majority, and a Cabinet, and present them to President Peres to form a government.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 03, 2009 at 11:38 PM
"Not exactly. I'm saying there is no port along the Egyptian border with Gaza. There is a difference logistically."
There's no port along Canada and the U.S border, but we manage to trade. That's because of the land border.
Back in January of 2008, tens of thousands of Gazans were crossing into Egypt, and bringing back tons of stuff. Because the Egyptians let them. For a while. Until they stopped.
That's because Eqypt doesn't want the responsibility, and chose to seal the border again. Few things would have thrilled the Israeli government more than if Eqypt took responsibility for their Gaza border.
"Egypt, thoug, deserves sharp criticism for its reprehensible behavior, but then the Egyptian regime has a very bad record in terms of human rights."
The criticism might be a bit more balanced and a bit less muted, especially, again, given the massive aid given to Eqypt by the U.S., which is the usual excuse given for an exceptionalist focus on Israeli crimes over those of other nations.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 03, 2009 at 11:50 PM
It should be noted that the news article which Gary Farber links to makes clear:
Rhetoric aside, the Israeli reaction to the Gazans having the ability to trade freely with Egypt by taking down the barrier was two-fold:
1. Assert that the Gazas would be bringing in weapons (and we'd have heard a lot more about this had Egypt not sealed the border again)
2. Threaten to withdraw water, medical supplies, and electricity from Gaza if the barrier remained down.
Given that Israel disrupted the electricity supply in Gaza as en immediate penalty for having their border open to Egypt, there's no reason to suppose that the threat would have been expressed in a phased withdrawal, but an immediate shutoff: no clean water, no electricity, and no medical supplies. As we already know from the same situation in Iraq, the babies, young children, and the ill would have died first when Israel imposed this collective punishment for Gaza - for the "crime" of having an open border with Egypt, and the ability to trade that Israel did not control.It is also clear from the article that Gary Farber links to that the Egyptian government had received demands to continue the blockade: yes, we can say they should have defied Israel for humanitarian reasons, but as I noted above: aside from everything else, Egypt has reasonable cause not to want to go to war with Israel.
"Balanced" criticism of Israel, for Americans, is traditionally finding excuses for Israel by blaming its Arab neighbors. Just as "fair and balanced" as Fox News.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 04, 2009 at 08:05 AM
"1. Assert that the Gazas would be bringing in weapons (and we'd have heard a lot more about this had Egypt not sealed the border again)"
Well, the Gazans do bring in lots of weapons via the tunnels; do I really need to supply links about that?
"'Balanced' criticism of Israel, for Americans, is traditionally finding excuses for Israel by blaming its Arab neighbors."
Of course, I made no excuses whatever for Israel in my comment. Pointing out that Egypt also deserves some criticism doesn't speak a word of excuse for Israel. If I'd wanted to make excuses for Israel's unjust blockade of Gaza, I'd have written some. If I'd wanted to say that the blockade was justified, I'd have said so.
And I didn't link to the article that I did because, gosh, I just didn't notice that it had negative implications as regards Israeli policy. I linked to it so as to not make excuses.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2009 at 08:30 AM
There's no port along Canada and the U.S border, but we manage to trade. That's because of the land border.
Sure, but I didn't say the land border was unusable. Quite the opposite, I said Egypt could undermine the blockade if it opened up. But I did say that ports make it easier considering how much of the relief material is arriving by boat.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 04, 2009 at 09:54 AM
Gary, it's not clear whose comments you are characterizing as having an "exeptionalist focus on Israeli crimes."
You acknowledge the existence of Israeli crimes, including the crime of collective punishment via the blockade. I think we can agree that the blockade of Gaza has been created and maintained at the behest of the Israeli government, and that it is part of a policy that has the complete support of the United States government.
A blockade would not be possible without the active co-operation of Egypt and the United States (money to Egypt, unconditional money to Israel, blocking international action through veto on UN Security Council).
The responsibility for the starvation and suffering in Gaza is as much ours as it is the Israeli government's. If the U.S. government wished to end the blockade, it would end: We could suspend military and economic aid to Israel and Egypt until Gaza is unsealed, organize a U.N. initiative to send humanitarian aid that the Israeli government will not be permitted to veto item by item, etc.
But we won't, because such actions are considered almost unthinkable by most members of Congress and the administration. If anyone dared to propose them, they would be characterized as trying to destroy the state of Israel.
Posted by: Nell | March 04, 2009 at 11:13 AM
"But we won't, because such actions are considered almost unthinkable by most members of Congress and the administration."
And to be clear, I agree that things alone those lines should be done.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Jes: They could. In theory.
But, because they don't want to get into a war with Israel, they won't.
Jes's point here with respect to Egypt and the sealing-off of the Gaza-Egypt border applies generally to other nations.
A vivid example of this is the occasion last November of Libya, alone among Arab nations and indeed the world community of nations, making an official effort to break the blockade by ship. The Libyan ship, carrying 3000 tons of food and medical supplies, was prevented from landing last November by the Israeli Navy:
If they did "fight", that is, use force to run the Israeli Navy's blockade in order to deliver non-military goods to Gaza, they would find themselves at war with Israel.
That is, they would be at war with a country which has been permitted to bomb its neighbors with no consequences (the Syrian who-knows-what facility in 2007, Lebanon in 2006). They would be at war with a country allied with the United States, which supplies it with whatever cluster bombs, bunker-busters, and other weapons are needed without once asking any questions about how those weapons are used (in violation of our own laws, such as the Arms Export Control Act).
Posted by: Nell | March 04, 2009 at 05:23 PM
"They would be at war with a country allied with the United States, which supplies it with whatever cluster bombs, bunker-busters, and other weapons are needed without once asking any questions about how those weapons are used...."
January 10th:
Sometimes questions have been asked.Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Eh? Do tell.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 04, 2009 at 05:45 PM
What's your question/point, Slartibartfast?
Posted by: Nell | March 04, 2009 at 08:11 PM
"What's your question/point, Slartibartfast?"
I think he was asking for an example of what you mean. I'm guessing it's something like this.
Whether it is, in fact, a violation of AECA is beyond my competence.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2009 at 08:30 PM
Gary has it right regarding what I was asking for, but I don't think a Kucinich letter is quite the evidence you'd want in order to prosecute.
AECA clearly delineates self-defense purposes, which are at least arguable in this case.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 04, 2009 at 09:30 PM
I'm a rudy, not a skin
I eat Ital, I drink gin.
Posted by: MattMinus | March 05, 2009 at 02:02 PM
MattMinus wins one of the most impressive song allusion contests in the history of ObWi!!!
Scofflaws!
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 05, 2009 at 04:52 PM