The Gaza Blockade: Humanitarian Emergency
One Year Later, We4Gaza
One year
ago we issued a call to the European Parliament and to the EU High
Representative for
foreign affairs to reconsider, actualize and enact
the deliberations already previously approved that could grant the
opening of the Rafah border under EUBAM, and to start collection of
funds and issue a tender for the reconstruction of the port in Gaza.
The
“humanitarian emergency” that led Gaza to be without medicines, sewage,
commerce and jobs has been planned carefully and enacted harshly along
years by Israeli.
We asked that
Europe act to grant a port and stably opened borders. We did not call
for the opening any other border under Israeli control. Under the claim
of prevention of “dual use” (use of merchandise other than for civilian
purposes) Israeli have reduced, prohibited, tricked and controlled the
arrival in Gaza of everything along 11 years, eventually determining the
present scarcity. Is this control that needs to be removed.
Our call was
directed to Europe because of the potential through its previous
deliberations for a port and for guarding the borders to rapidly
activate the autonomous development for Gaza, liberating the people from
the burden that the Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade impose.
We, one year
later, acknowledge that, beside a joint meeting of the E.P. Subcommittee
on Human Rights and Delegation for relations with Palestine, no
priority was given to any of the actions for Gaza by the European High
Representative, the European Commission or the Parliament.
Meanwhile, the
blockade was aggravated further by the Israeli Government and through
internal and proxy measures, the Rafah border was closed almost year
long up to the second week of Ramadan (3rd week of June), UNRWA funds
were cut by US, and it is menaced itself of closure and on the verge of
having to cut educational and health services and food assistance to
up to 80% of the Gaza residents. According to Israeli there is “no
refugee issue” and no responsibility of providing by the sieging party.
Meanwhile, the
Great March for Return has shown the will and determination not of few
but of a generation of Gaza youth to take an unarmed path of political
protest against the blockade, to request freedom. Unequivocally, and in
unity, the population of Gaza is asking for autonomy and freedom to
reach outside for commerce, study, work, visiting, developing.
It requests
the lifting of the blockade without ambiguity. This is surely
conflicting with the Israeli project of continuing to control every
aspect of life in Gaza, as reflected also in the criminal aggression
that confronted the people in the March.
Meanwhile, the
situation evolved with the announcement by Israel Government of its
will to solve the “humanitarian crisis”, and by US of the “deal of the
century” for Palestine. The core issue on the agenda is the port for
Gaza.
The way
Israeli proposed to build a port does not include removal of the
blockade, but charging its costs and responsibility on the international
community, or on a coalition of willing parties while continuing the
total control. It contains at the same time the potential, in
similarity to the talks within the Oslo peace process, of consolidating
its expansion and power even without building the seaport.
This cannot breed peace and development.
It is
impossible to think of peace without justice and there is no justice
without recognition of the Palestinians’ rights, their autonomy and the
end of the siege of Gaza.
In this
political context, a further standstill of decision by Europe, would be
acceptance if not collaboration with the political and practical process
of occupation by Israeli; a clear position must be taken rapidly to
remove the blockade.
The Israeli
claim is: “we want peace and we want to build a port to solve the
humanitarian situation of Gaza”, but “we cannot trust in any foreigner’s
hands the security of our country, we have to protect ourselves from
the risk of dual use”, thus we have to be the exclusive controllers of
the port. This imply continuation of the blockade.
The proposal
of a port for Gaza it itself is no news; in time it was presented once
and again, always to be cancelled. It was already part of the Oslo
agreement (a port was even built and shortly destroyed by bombing), it
had sunk into oblivion after Israeli opposed its reconstruction by
Europe in the early 2000, it was resuscitated in 2011 by Israeli
Minister Kahz, and it was one of the requests from Gaza at the armistice
at the end of the 2014 attacks.
The proposal
now seem designed to go ahead due to the support from allies who grant
to foster, perfect and reinforce the legitimacy of the blockade. It
couples the claim to fulfill an “humanitarian urgency” with pressure on
the international community, under the condition that the Israeli will
control the location and functioning of a port for Gaza.
There is no
difference in (or the need for) a seaport when its rules of functioning
will be the same as those of the existing the land borders, that
enforced the blockade of Gaza for the last 11 years. Such a port would
not relieve Gaza from the total, historically arbitrary and oppressive,
most often punitive, when not openly criminal, control of Israel on the
population.
In the Israeli
plan for a port or in the proposal called “the deal of the century” by
US (still to be fully unveiled), there is no promise of positive change
for Gaza people or of substantial relief from the blockade does not mean
that there is not a reason of profit for Israel and its allies.
The common
denominators of the vented proposals of seaport for Gaza by Israeli and
US, and other supporters, intertwine with each other:
1- In all the proposals the seaport is not on Palestinian land.
The locations proposed being El Arish in Egypt, Cyprus or a in more
creative version, a new artificial island ashore off Gaza. Security is
claimed as the reason for these choices, but it emerges that it may not
be the only reason, as below.
2- In all the proposals is requested that the expenses to build and run the seaport will be sustained by “international parties“;
these may vary according to the proposed location of the seaport,
suggesting that there would be an open tender to the best offer to
support the Israeli’s continuing hegemony on Gaza and foster its
extension in the Mediterranean. Israel will be the one to give ultimate
permission to build a seaport, subject to forward political, practical
control of the blockade of Gaza, and to acquire more profits and
political power in the Mediterranean area at large.
3- In all the proposals the unique controller of the port will be Israeli,
its rules prevailing over any international set of rules. Israel will
be the one to determine the rules of function, decide who works there,
who serves in the security, in the services etc. and, off course, what
and who passes through, by a set of self-determined rules of sort. Since
the expenses for this will be on the international community, this will
thus legitimate these rules, analogous to those which rule now the land
border of Gaza denying freedom for Gaza at any level.
The “deal of the century” indeed, from every point of view, but only for Israel.
We demanded
one year ago, and continue to ask, that Europe takes the responsibility
of the disasters that its blind support for Israeli governments have
produced and continue to allow to be conducted in Palestine, and acts to
restore the legitimate rights to freedom for the people of Gaza.
We asked that
Europe will use mechanisms already in existence, that could most rapidly
grant the self determination of the Palestinians as to what they
commerce, who they commerce with, who will travel and who will return
home.
We demanded a
year ago, and still demand, that Europe acts towards the release of Gaza
from the blockade by exercising equity towards the people of Gaza in
agreement with international laws and UN deliberations.
Any other
position, in the present circumstances would be collaboration to further
the enslavement of Gaza people and the dissolution of Palestine.
And it is also
highly the time that Europe shows to his own people that words so often
used like “equity” and “concern for human rights” and “autonomy of the
people” signify actions.
The original source of this article is we4Gaza.org
Copyright © we4Gaza, we4Gaza.org, 2018
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment