Gaza: The State As Internment Camp
The chief fact on the ground in Gaza is the border. Gaza is a densely populated strip of seacoast surrounded on two sides by Israeli territory. It has one border with Egypt. The Mediterranean shore is controlled by the Israeli navy. For all of the time since 1967 Palestinians rights to cross the border have been severely restricted. Reading Amnesty International files dating back to 1998, - search Gaza+Closures for a full list - Wonks Anonymous gets the distinct impression that the border has been closed more often than not.
In 2001 it was reported that the closures had already imposed great hardships on the Gaza economy for seven years. In 2005, after the supposed Israeli disengagement Amnesty International still reported the same story: Complete or almost complete closure of all borders for human travel, borders open at times for commercial transactions with Israel but subject to arbitrary closures at the slightest provocation. Goods delayed, produce spoiled waiting to cross over into Israel and contracts broken.
This finally culminated a year or so ago with the election of the Hamas government when a full scale blockade, so called sanctions were imposed on all movements of goods or people. This being seen in the US and in Israel as a means to informing the people of Gaza that we refused to recognize their elected government and wished to encourage them to do better next election.
Under this regime viable economic activity in Gaza, which owns mainly labor and must trade this resource and its products to survive, has all but ground to a halt. For all the industry of its citizens and all of its efforts to foster manufacture, agriculture and trade, Gaza has remained an international welfare recipient.
When we evaluate Gaza by the stated goals of the peace process or the criteria we might use to evaluate any other state, it is a miserable failure. It has only one trading partner. That partner is an enemy which does not recognize the elected government of Gaza and closes off trade at whim. Is economy its in shambles and it is subject to regular attacks.
And yet Gaza continues and Israel has, except for the matter of borders and the occasional bloody attack on some perceived enemy living in Gaza, disengaged from the area. What purpose does Gaza serve?
It is like this, there are millions of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom left the lands occupied by the Israel during the 1948 war. Since that time they have been concentrated in this coastal strip ruled first by Egypt, which showed a notable lack of concern for their welfare, and then by Israel which has gone from benign neglect to hostile neglect.
They need to be somewhere and no one else seems willing to take them. They need to go somewhere and, besides, in Gaza they are close by. It costs Israel little to keep the borders closed.
The disengagement was simply a decision to convert Gaza from mixed use - internment facility and destination for settlers - to a single use - internment facility. The decision was made because the settlements in Gaza were insignificant and much too costly to defend.
In this context the general lawlessness of Gaza under Fatah was a good thing. The "government" of Gaza was powerless to stop minor attacks on Israelis and major corruption and gangsterism by Palestinians against other Palestinians. Gaza could serve as an example to the world of the barbarity and backwardness of the Palestinians.
Besides the entire mess was safely walled in and, except for a small number of random rocket attacks, no one but the Palestinians suffered.
While Wonks Anonymous holds Hamas in about the same esteem as he holds other political organizations dedicated to violence and bigotry - organizations like Likhud or Kadima - he must point out that this party did manage to restore order to Gaza. It also seems to have been able to largely control actions against Israel and to honor the last six month's cease fire to the same extent that this cease fire was honored by Israel.
Which, to Wonks Anonymous mind, is the very thing that makes Hamas so unsuitable for the current Israeli government. The restoration of order implies a degree of discipline and self organization, both for a political organization and a population. In the context of an internment camp this is a threat. If the detainees can run their own affairs and discipline themselves then it is only a matter of time before they attempt a prison break.
In 2001 it was reported that the closures had already imposed great hardships on the Gaza economy for seven years. In 2005, after the supposed Israeli disengagement Amnesty International still reported the same story: Complete or almost complete closure of all borders for human travel, borders open at times for commercial transactions with Israel but subject to arbitrary closures at the slightest provocation. Goods delayed, produce spoiled waiting to cross over into Israel and contracts broken.
This finally culminated a year or so ago with the election of the Hamas government when a full scale blockade, so called sanctions were imposed on all movements of goods or people. This being seen in the US and in Israel as a means to informing the people of Gaza that we refused to recognize their elected government and wished to encourage them to do better next election.
Under this regime viable economic activity in Gaza, which owns mainly labor and must trade this resource and its products to survive, has all but ground to a halt. For all the industry of its citizens and all of its efforts to foster manufacture, agriculture and trade, Gaza has remained an international welfare recipient.
When we evaluate Gaza by the stated goals of the peace process or the criteria we might use to evaluate any other state, it is a miserable failure. It has only one trading partner. That partner is an enemy which does not recognize the elected government of Gaza and closes off trade at whim. Is economy its in shambles and it is subject to regular attacks.
And yet Gaza continues and Israel has, except for the matter of borders and the occasional bloody attack on some perceived enemy living in Gaza, disengaged from the area. What purpose does Gaza serve?
It is like this, there are millions of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom left the lands occupied by the Israel during the 1948 war. Since that time they have been concentrated in this coastal strip ruled first by Egypt, which showed a notable lack of concern for their welfare, and then by Israel which has gone from benign neglect to hostile neglect.
They need to be somewhere and no one else seems willing to take them. They need to go somewhere and, besides, in Gaza they are close by. It costs Israel little to keep the borders closed.
The disengagement was simply a decision to convert Gaza from mixed use - internment facility and destination for settlers - to a single use - internment facility. The decision was made because the settlements in Gaza were insignificant and much too costly to defend.
In this context the general lawlessness of Gaza under Fatah was a good thing. The "government" of Gaza was powerless to stop minor attacks on Israelis and major corruption and gangsterism by Palestinians against other Palestinians. Gaza could serve as an example to the world of the barbarity and backwardness of the Palestinians.
Besides the entire mess was safely walled in and, except for a small number of random rocket attacks, no one but the Palestinians suffered.
While Wonks Anonymous holds Hamas in about the same esteem as he holds other political organizations dedicated to violence and bigotry - organizations like Likhud or Kadima - he must point out that this party did manage to restore order to Gaza. It also seems to have been able to largely control actions against Israel and to honor the last six month's cease fire to the same extent that this cease fire was honored by Israel.
Which, to Wonks Anonymous mind, is the very thing that makes Hamas so unsuitable for the current Israeli government. The restoration of order implies a degree of discipline and self organization, both for a political organization and a population. In the context of an internment camp this is a threat. If the detainees can run their own affairs and discipline themselves then it is only a matter of time before they attempt a prison break.
Comments