August 03, 2006

Gaza Crisis in Context

by Alex Hemingway

As the bombs rain down on Beirut, the ongoing assault against the Gaza Strip has been overshadowed. In Lebanon, the civilian infrastructure is being destroyed, as precision-guided weapons demolish houses, bridges, roads, television stations, farms and medical vehicles. The UN's top humanitarian official describes Lebanon as "block by block, levelled to the ground," denouncing the Israeli attacks as "a violation of international law." Yet, these conditions would not be unfamiliar to residents of occupied Palestinian territories. Moreover, throughout the Gaza crisis, as in the attacks on Lebanon, the sequence of events has been obscured, and crucial information ignored, by both Western leaders and pundits.

To develop an accurate analysis of the situation in any conflict zone, the elementary facts must be addressed. The aim of this article is to: (1) examine how the current crisis in Gaza began and progressed; and (2) consider the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1. The Current Crisis

Starting Points

By now, we are well aware that on June 25, Palestinian militants crossed into Israel and raided an IDF outpost, capturing an Israeli soldier; two other soldiers and three Palestinian fighters were killed. The Palestinian raid was met with considerable shock and condemnation in the West. The name and image of the captured soldier, Gilad Shalit, has become familiar to millions of people around the world, and politicians everywhere have called for his release.

In contrast, the events of June 24 appear to be of significantly less interest to Western journalists and leaders. On that day, Israeli soldiers crossed into Gaza and raided a Palestinian home, capturing a doctor and his brother, and beating the owner of the house. Needless to say, millions of people have not seen the faces of the captured men, Mustafa and Osama Muammar, on television, nor are world leaders calling for their release. Indeed, the story of the current crisis in Gaza is clearly and consistently reported as starting on June 25.

In a sense, though, perhaps we are correct to ascribe little significance to June 24, if we examine the first twenty-three days of that month. During that period, in 140 IDF incursions into the occupied territories, Israeli forces abducted more than 160 Palestinians, including at least two women and 17 children, while Palestinians held no Israeli prisoners. The IDF also confiscated several Palestinian houses for military use.

Furthermore, on June 16, a failed Israeli assassination attempt killed three Palestinian children and a pregnant woman. On June 9, Israeli artillery shelling killed 7 members of a beach-going Gaza family, orphaning a 10-year-old girl. In total, Israeli forces killed at least 44 Palestinians in the occupied territories over twenty-three days. During the same period, Palestinians killed no Israelis according to B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group; however, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds Palestinians responsible for the killing of one Israeli on June 11.

The facts notwithstanding, reports continue to describe the June 25 militant raid as "unprovoked," signalling the "beginning" of a new cycle of violence, presumably based on the understanding that Arab lives don't count.

Prisoners and Negotiations

Following the June 25 raid, the captors of Gilad Shalit demanded the release of detained Palestinians, particularly women and children, in exchange for the return of the Israeli soldier. Israel currently detains approximately 7,000-9,000 Palestinians, including nearly 1,000 held without change or due process rights, and approximately 500 children. Palestinians are also detained by Israel on the basis of their "political opinions and non-violent political activity," according to B'Tselem. In contrast, Palestinians hold one Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit. In response to the Palestinian offer, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised "extreme action," and launched a major attack on the Gaza Strip, while openly rejecting any possibility of negotiations or prisoner exchange.

Effects of the Hostilities

In Gaza, Israel has attacked civilian infrastructure and residential areas, which is a war crime prohibited under several articles of the Geneva Conventions. Israeli forces demolished the only power station in Gaza, leaving much of the population with no electricity, and forcing hospitals and sewage treatment facilities to run on ill-equipped generators. Air strikes destroyed bridges, eliminating freedom of movement within Gaza, achieving consistency with the siege conditions that Israeli forces have imposed on Gaza's borders for months.

The IDF seized and detained 20 Palestinian legislators and eight cabinet members, as well as hundreds of other Palestinians. Various Palestinian government buildings and educational institutions have been destroyed in missile strikes, along with more than 70 houses and apartment complexes. Israeli forces have used Palestinians, including children, as human shields during house-to-house raids, according to B'Tselem and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The IDF has raided or closed down at least 41 charitable organizations, while more than 2000 Palestinians have been forced from their homes.

In Israel, there have been continued Palestinian Qassam attacks, which have reached civilian areas. The use of these crude, homemade rockets is considered a war crime, because of their indiscriminate nature. Since June 25, there have been at least 12 injuries in Israel, as well as property damage, including a severely damaged apartment building. Palestinians have killed two Israelis in the occupied territories, and several IDF soldiers have been injured.

In contrast, Israel has killed at least 147 Palestinians in the occupied territories since June 25, injuring more than 648, including at least 157 women and children.

Prior Artillery Shelling and Qassam Attacks

Correctly, there has been considerable concern about Palestinian Qassam rocket launches against Israel, although there has been little discussion of Israeli artillery shelling. In a study undertaken in April, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reported that over a two-week period, Palestinians launched 67 Qassams into Israel, though no casualties were reported. However, the UNOCHA also reported that Israel fired 2,300 heavy artillery shells and 34 missiles into the Gaza Strip during the same period, killing 17 Palestinians and injuring 62 others (including more than a dozen children). In fact, prior to the current crisis, since September 2005 alone, Israel has fired approximately 8,000 heavy artillery shells into the occupied territories, claiming at least 80 Palestinian lives, while in the last five years, approximately 1,000 Qassams have been launched by Palestinians, taking eight Israeli lives.

2. The Broader Context

Security and Occupation

Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings against Israel have been discussed extensively in the West. In this context, security is viewed as a critical concern primarily for Israel. However, over the last six years, nearly four times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the conflict, including six out of every seven children slain, perhaps leading Palestinians to believe that they also have a security concern.

The effects of the occupation on Palestinian daily life extend beyond death and injury. For example, at least 4,170 Palestinian homes have been bulldozed and demolished by the IDF since 2000, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The West Bank is peppered with Israeli military checkpoints, severely restricting freedom of movement, and illegal settlements, housing nearly 250,000 Israelis on confiscated land. In addition, a large network of Israeli-only "bypass roads" runs through the West Bank, dividing it into discontiguous pieces. Israel also continues to erect a separation wall on Palestinian territory, which has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. The West Bank and Gaza are effectively cut off from Jerusalem, the centre of Palestinian culture and commerce, as well as the outside world, strangling Palestinians economically.

Democracy and Duplicity

Despite Western calls for democratization in the Middle East, US and Israeli officials told the New York Times in February that they were "discussing ways to destabilize the [newly-elected] Palestinian government;" they proceeded by halting aid, seizing tax revenues, and restricting the flow of goods and people across Palestinian borders. As a condition for an end to the destabilization campaign, Western and Israeli leaders have demanded that Hamas recognize Israel and renounce violence.

However, the latter criteria seems somewhat dubious, given that this condition is imposed on only one side in the conflict, and considering the distribution of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. In the case of the former criteria, Hamas is indeed frequently admonished for failing to recognize Israel's "right to exist." Yet, in contrast, there are no ultimatums in response to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert publicly stating, "My people have an eternal and historic right to this entire land," an effective denial of any future Palestinian state's "right to exist."

In addition, while Hamas forged an agreement with rival Fatah to accept a two-state solution shortly before the current crisis, the Israeli government has long been actually enacting Olmert's professed position, both through the ongoing military attacks in the occupied territories, as well as an annexation plan for the West Bank. Under what Israeli leaders call the "convergence" plan, Israel is in the process of annexing the most valuable Palestinian land and water resources, cantonizing what remains of the West Bank, taking the Jordan River banks, and retaining East Jerusalem.

Israeli government officials have also acknowledged that the purpose of the unilateral "disengagement" policy is, in the words of Dov Weisglass, a top advisor to the Ariel Sharon government, to "prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state." Furthermore, he added, "the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process…it supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

Solutions and Rejections

The basic components of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are widely understood and accepted. There must be mutual recognition and security guarantees; an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (as per UN Resolution 242); and a limited right of return for Palestinian refugees. Still, an agreement remains elusive, and the lack of a negotiated settlement is frequently attributed to Palestinian "rejectionism."

However, by the mid-1970s, the Palestine Liberation Organization had accepted the two-state solution. In January 1976, such a solution was formulated and put to the UN Security Council, with PLO support, only to be vetoed by the United States. The same proposal was put to the UN General Assembly, receiving overwhelming support, but was rejected by the U.S. and Israel. Since then, the U.S. has blocked dozens of UN resolutions pertaining to Palestinian rights in the occupied territories.

More recently, during the lauded Oslo peace process, the Israeli position softened. Namely, they permitted Palestinians to control 3 percent of the West Bank, while 97 percent remained under Israeli military authority, although Palestinians were allowed to administrate 30 percent. While the areas under Palestinian control were supposed to expand over time, they did not. After the Oslo accords, Israeli settlement in the West Bank actually increased steeply.

The Oslo process culminated in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and Israel made what was widely called a "generous offer." Under the proposal, Israel would annex 9-10 percent of the West Bank, such that three virtually disconnected cantons would be created for Palestinians, while Israel would retain control over key parts of East Jerusalem, as well as the Jordan Valley, effectively surrounding any Palestinian state. Israel would also maintain control over all Palestinian airspace, water resources, and certain borders. Yassar Arafat rejected the offer, facing a great chorus of scorn from Western leaders and pundits.

Nonetheless, a solution addressing these deficiencies was approached between high-level Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at the Taba Summit in 2001. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak withdrew his representatives. He rejected Yassar Arafat's calls for a return to negotiations, as did Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after his election. In 2003, a group of influential Israeli and Palestinian "moderates" devised another peace proposal in Geneva. While Arafat signalled his approval of these accords, Sharon rejected them, insisting there is "no partner" for peace.

Conclusion

Depictions of the current Gaza crisis as "caused by Palestinian aggression" and the broader conflict as stemming from "Palestinian rejectionism" are common in the media, yet they are not borne out by the evidence. I hope this discussion has helped to shed light on a few elementary facts, and to address some of the more egregious deficiencies found in mainstream portrayals of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sources: Bt'selem (Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories); Palestinian Centre for Human Rights; Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Palestinian Red Crescent Society; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Ha'arretz; New York Times, BBC News.