Lifting the Gaza Blockade: Practical Issues

[Degreez]

So long as the state safeguarding its security believes that the security benefits of the blockade outweigh its myriad costs, it will maintain the blockade.

You are forgetting many, many points. When Israel declared its intent to blockade Gaza, did they include the duration of it and when it would end? That is one requirement. Another is maintaining that the blockade is effective. Israel may not just say the blockade is effective, it needs to provide something that substantiates how the direct military advantage is not excessive in relation to the civilian population. 40% unemployed, 70% of Gaza's factories are closed, and 60% of households are food insecure. What military advantage is not excessive when compared to a crippling economy, poverty, and a humanitarian crisis?

Those calling for an end to the blockade need to offer or construct a credible alternative that addresses Israel's security needs at least as effectively as the blockade does.

That is not a requirement for them. Telling Israel not to break international law is all that is needed. Israel can figure out a different way to maintain its blockade while still allowing civilian goods. The mere fact that some civilian goods may or may not have dual use is not reason alone to ban it. International law prohibits collective measures that do not distinguish between civilian and military.
http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf

fruit preserves
seeds and nuts
biscuits and sweets
potato chips

How is banning those items distinguishing between civilian and military? It's not, and it's pathetic to hear that banning these type of items are stopping Hamas' capabilities of firing rockets/mortars.

No sovereign state will abandon its needs, particularly those as basic as the safety of its own people, simply because outsiders suggest such an approach.

They suggest to Israel not to break international law. Only you would try to spin that with abandoning security needs. No one said Israel does not have an inherent right to self-defense. The terms in which they actively pursued that self-defense (banning items that do not distinguish between civilian and military) are illegal. That is not the same thing as saying Israel has no right to self-defense.

If others have suggestions for modifying the blockade so that Israel's security needs are safeguarded and the impact on ordinary Gaza residents is mitigated, that's a different matter. But seeking an end to the blockade without offering any credible alternative is something Israel cannot reasonably be expected to accept. Today's foiled terrorist operation provides just a reminder of the risks Gaza-based terrorist entities pose. Moreover, whether the timing of the foiled operation earlier today is coincidental or might somehow be related to the expectation among the responsible terrorist organization that Israel had been distracted by the heavy international pressure under which Israel currently finds itself remains to be seen.

Why the heck would I (or anyone else besides Israel for that matter) have to offer Israel an alternative? Ending the blockade is saying end the constant violaltions of international humanitarian law. Just because Israel's security needs infringe on the rights of others, you have this strange belief that an alternative needs to be given.

 

[washunut]

You have extremely misinformed views on Europeans.

We may be very critical towards the blockade or some other policies, but that is because we are convinced that these are the policies that anihilate any hope for peace. All Europeans are asking as a "condemnation" of Israel is an independent inquiry...and even that is "anti-Israel"!

All we want is peace in the ME, and since we believe that the blockade or raids such as the one on the flotilla are just adding fuel to fire, we condemn them. That's very logical.

If Europeans were really anti-Israel, they would not have recognized this country, they would not have given their nuclear technology to Israel, and they would not be selling weapons to Israel.

It is true that shortly after WWII Europe was supportive of israel. While there exceptions to everything, most people would agree that changed many years ago. As an example I think France still owes Israel some Mirages it purchased and paid for but were never delivered.

I do not know your history, perhaps you called for an investigation of Hamas as they sent many rockets trying to kill civilians. Or perhaps you may have done something similar as Hezbellah was shelling people's homes. I do know that when these outrages were going on, Europe was pitifully silent. So to call for an investigation when 9 blockade breakers were killed and not care if the other things I mentioned seems hypocritical. I will even agree that I am biased on this issue.

Europeans of all people should understand the Jewish people's desire to have a homeland.

 

[donsutherland1]

Only you would try to spin that with abandoning security needs. No one said Israel does not have an inherent right to self-defense. The terms in which they actively pursued that self-defense (banning items that do not distinguish between civilian and military) are illegal. That is not the same thing as saying Israel has no right to self-defense.

Why the heck would I (or anyone else besides Israel for that matter) have to offer Israel an alternative? Ending the blockade is saying end the constant violaltions of international humanitarian law. Just because Israel's security needs infringe on the rights of others, you have this strange belief that an alternative needs to be given.

If others expect Israel to take measures that put its population at greater risk, they need to offer Israel something that addresses that risk. It is unreasonable for outsiders, most of whom have never confronted the risk of indiscriminate attack on their own persons, families, or populations, to insist that Israel not act to defend itself. The expectation that those demanding that Israel end its maritime blockade provide a credible alternative is not "strange." Rather, the belief that Israel should simply accede to demands that would put its population at greater risk is "strange."

 

[donsutherland1]

Bub,

Two quick things:

1. I did not agree with the argument that “most of Europe would probably prefer to have Israel be destroyed.” (Response in Message #115)
2. The section you quoted (Message #117) pertains to many of Israel’s critics in general. To date, the vast majority of the membership of the General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council have offered practically nothing of substance to address Israel’s security needs. As Europe has generally been improving ties with Israel, I would exclude Europe from the mix of the critics to whom I am referring.

 

[Degreez]

If others expect Israel to take measures that put its population at greater risk, they need to offer Israel something that addresses that risk. It is unreasonable for outsiders, most of whom have never confronted the risk of indiscriminate attack on their own persons, families, or populations, to insist that Israel not act to defend itself. The expectation that those demanding that Israel end its maritime blockade provide a credible alternative is not "strange." Rather, the belief that Israel should simply accede to demands that would put its population at greater risk is "strange."

No, they don't need to do anything. Israel is the one violating international law with its illegal blockade. Israel is the one that should have to fix that problem. Not the people who are telling them to stop violating international law. It is ridiculous for you to suggest that because an organization/entity asks Israel to stop violating international that they should then also provide Israel with a solution to fix whatever problem they have.

You stook a stab at Turkey with that other thread, knowing full well that most of their raids and strikes on northern Iraq have all been planned by US military intelligence. Notice how Turkey doesn't blockade Iraq to stop PKK attacks?

 

[bub]

Bub,

Two quick things:

1. I did not agree with the argument that “most of Europe would probably prefer to have Israel be destroyed.” (Response in Message #115)

ok sorry then

2. The section you quoted (Message #117) pertains to many of Israel’s critics in general. To date, the vast majority of the membership of the General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council have offered practically nothing of substance to address Israel’s security needs. As Europe has generally been improving ties with Israel, I would exclude Europe from the mix of the critics to whom I am referring.

I think most Europeans would agree with what I'm going to say

- as for West-Bank: nothing can justify the checkpoints since there seems to be no violence against Israeli in West Bank. Maybe these checkpoints could be justified if they were on the Israeli border but so far they're still in the middle of West-Bank, causing lots of problems to Palestinians, and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli. As for the "security wall", it would be OK if it was along the borders, but instead it protects illegal colonies and encircles Palestinian villages, causing lots of problems to Palestinians and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli. So you see, it's not that we're against the principle of checkpoints or a "security wall", it's that as we understand, these two policies are so badly implemented that they have a counter productive effect: they may give a sense of security to Israeli people, but they have the consequence that Palestinians in West Bank have legitimate reasons to dislike Israel, which is a big problem since you have to make peace with them.

- as for Gaza: I understand the security needs of Israel and I support a blockade that would prevent weapons from entering Gaza. However, just like the checkpoints or the security wall, this policy is so badly implemented (by banning many sorts of food and by not being reasonable at all concerning the other goods that should enter) that it is totally counter-productive. As we understand it, the only consequence of the blockade is a strenghtening of the Hamas, because it gives legitimate reasons for people in Gaza to hate Israel, which is a big problem because that's the reason why they launch rockets at you. It's exactly the same with the operation cast lead and the various retaliation raids conducted by the IDF. They do not solve anything, they add fuel to fire.

So you see, we care very much about Israeli security needs, the difference is that we think these security needs can only be fullfiled if you abandon or adapt counter-productive policies

 

[Apocalypse]

- as for West-Bank: nothing can justify the checkpoints since there seems to be no violence against Israeli in West Bank.

The check points exist to check everyone that's coming in and out of the West Bank villages/towns.
They are a vital part of the counter-terrorism from the West Bank.
We're mainly speaking here about Palestinian individuals that commit terrorism against civilians, mainly settlers.

Maybe these checkpoints could be justified if they were on the Israeli border but so far they're still in the middle of West-Bank, causing lots of problems to Palestinians, and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli.

It's called an occupation for a reason.

As for the "security wall", it would be OK if it was along the borders, but instead it protects illegal colonies and encircles Palestinian villages, causing lots of problems to Palestinians and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli.

I agree.
It was already moved once, but it can be moved again, as long as the Israeli security is not being damaged as a result.

So you see, it's not that we're against the principle of checkpoints or a "security wall", it's that as we understand, these two policies are so badly implemented that they have a counter productive effect: they may give a sense of security to Israeli people, but they have the consequence that Palestinians in West Bank have legitimate reasons to dislike Israel, which is a big problem since you have to make peace with them.

I can't see a reasonable reasoning behind the objection to the checkpoints.
Sure they slow the Palestinians down on their daily lives, but ****loads of terrorists were stopped on those checkpoints during the last intifada.

- as for Gaza: I understand the security needs of Israel and I support a blockade that would prevent weapons from entering Gaza. However, just like the checkpoints or the security wall, this policy is so badly implemented (by banning many sorts of food and by not being reasonable at all concerning the other goods that should enter) that it is totally counter-productive. As we understand it, the only consequence of the blockade is a strenghtening of the Hamas, because it gives legitimate reasons for people in Gaza to hate Israel, which is a big problem because that's the reason why they launch rockets at you. It's exactly the same with the operation cast lead and the various retaliation raids conducted by the IDF. They do not solve anything, they add fuel to fire.

That's quite reasonable really.
Would you support the blockade if it was only a military blockade and not a general one?
Of course I do not agree with this "that's why they launch rockets at you" line, since the rockets came nearly 7 years before the blockade, and I also do not agree with the statement about operation Cast Lead since it did drastically decrease the rocket launching from the Strip.
It was a complete success really.

 

[washunut]

ok sorry then



I think most Europeans would agree with what I'm going to say

- as for West-Bank: nothing can justify the checkpoints since there seems to be no violence against Israeli in West Bank. Maybe these checkpoints could be justified if they were on the Israeli border but so far they're still in the middle of West-Bank, causing lots of problems to Palestinians, and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli. As for the "security wall", it would be OK if it was along the borders, but instead it protects illegal colonies and encircles Palestinian villages, causing lots of problems to Palestinians and thus spreading hatred towards Israeli. So you see, it's not that we're against the principle of checkpoints or a "security wall", it's that as we understand, these two policies are so badly implemented that they have a counter productive effect: they may give a sense of security to Israeli people, but they have the consequence that Palestinians in West Bank have legitimate reasons to dislike Israel, which is a big problem since you have to make peace with them.

- as for Gaza: I understand the security needs of Israel and I support a blockade that would prevent weapons from entering Gaza. However, just like the checkpoints or the security wall, this policy is so badly implemented (by banning many sorts of food and by not being reasonable at all concerning the other goods that should enter) that it is totally counter-productive. As we understand it, the only consequence of the blockade is a strenghtening of the Hamas, because it gives legitimate reasons for people in Gaza to hate Israel, which is a big problem because that's the reason why they launch rockets at you. It's exactly the same with the operation cast lead and the various retaliation raids conducted by the IDF. They do not solve anything, they add fuel to fire.

So you see, we care very much about Israeli security needs, the difference is that we think these security needs can only be fullfiled if you abandon or adapt counter-productive policies

Bub:

I understan your positions nd can'tsay they ae unreasonable. My qurstion about yEuropean sincerity is that while they explain there concerns, I have seen no viable ansers. For example the otrage about operation cast lead. It is one thing to argu abot the attack, my sense is that would have been better ccepted if there was a real solution to the plight Israel found it self in. Totally leave Gaza and then have it used a a launcing thousands of missles and rockets into Israel. Unchecked they may have started firing off missles into Tel Aviv 44 miles away. No country counld allow that to happen. No country could avoid fighting and have no civilian problems when the fighters on prupose blend into the poulation.