Hundreds of Palestinians demanded the Rafah crossing to Egypt be reopened for vital supplies that are scarce because of Israel's blockade of Gaza.
A number of people were injured, mostly in scuffles, but several were seriously hurt, according to reports.
It came as Israel eased a four-day Gaza lockdown by allowing fuel deliveries.
The UN Security Council met in an emergency session on Tuesday to discuss Gaza.
Rocket attacks
As the 15-member body met in New York, Israel said its discussions were one-sided.
| | |
Its foreign ministry said in a statement: "We can't tolerate a situation where the Security Council debates only the situation of residents in the Gaza Strip and completely ignores that of Israelis living under the constant threat of Qassam rockets."
Since Hamas seized control of Gaza last June, the Rafah crossing has remained mostly closed at Israel's insistence.
But violence broke out as Palestinians tried to get past Egyptian security forces at the terminal, Gaza's only border post that bypasses Israel.
Gunfire erupted as security forces tried to stop hundreds of demonstrators breaking through to the Egyptian side.
'Fabrication'
One of the protesters, mother-of-five Umm Mohammed, 42, told AFP news agency: "Why doesn't Egypt open the crossing? Because [US President George W Bush] gives them dollars."
The trouble came as Israel said its blockade - imposed last week in response to rocket attacks from Gaza - was being eased only for Tuesday and would be reviewed after that.
HAVE YOUR SAY The blockade will exacerbate the security dilemma for Israel Gwilym, Oxford
The UN had warned that food aid to about 860,000 Gazans could be halted within days because of the restrictions.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice blamed Hamas for the lockdown but said she had urged Israel to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
Israel allowed lorries to deliver industrial diesel for Gaza's sole power plant on Tuesday.
The Israeli foreign ministry said it would allow more fuel to be delivered in the coming days along with food and medicine.
'Futile launchings'
But Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas labelled the move "insufficient" and called for a total end to the blockade.
He said civilians in Gaza were not responsible for the "futile launchings" of rockets into Israel.
The blockade forced the Nusseirat power plant to shut down on Monday, plunging Gaza City into darkness.
But Israel accused Hamas of "fabricating" the power shortage, saying it was still directly providing nearly 70% of the coastal territory's power.
The Israeli government said its lockdown had stopped missile attacks - although another rocket struck the Israeli town of Sderot on Tuesday.
But Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said: "The real crisis of our Palestinian people is the continuing siege on the Gaza Strip."
The European Union and international agencies have denounced Israel's border closures as illegal "collective punishment" against Gaza's 1.5m residents.
Israel imposed an economic embargo on Gaza after the Islamist militants of Hamas seized control of the territory from the rival Fatah group in June.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7202797.stm
Not really any comment here except to reiterate that collective punishment is wrong and generally ineffective against regimes where people have little voice. One thing to note is the difference in language used by the EU versus the US. The EU condemns collective punishment and denounces the embargo/border closure while the US blames Hamas and urges Israel to "avoid a humanitarian crisis". Rather lackluster response since the crisis is pretty much ongoing. Good job Condi.
4 comments:
From reading the article, it's not very clear to me why you think the EU's response any better that Rice's... Placing all the blame on Israel seems to me to be just as ignorant and lackluster as placing all the blame on Hamas. Way to go EU?
So answer me this: Hamas continues to make rocket attacks into Israel. What should Israel's response be?
I don't want to hear what they shouldn't be doing, we've heard that already. What I want to hear is what is the correct, appropriate response, in your eyes?
The reason the EU response is preferable is because collective punishment is ineffective, immoral, and illegal under international law. Israel, and any country that engages in it, should be denounced. The US policy of asking Israel (politely) to to avoid too harsh a response (which really says nothing) without calling it out when it imposes undue harm on the civilian population (or even supporting it) is also immoral and inconsistent. The US denounces Iran every time it imprisons a dissident or Venezuela every time Chavez amends the constitution. But when Israel makes it impossible to get food, medicine, fuel, or electricity to a million people in Gaza the US asks nicely that they not be too harsh. Do you not see some inconsistencies there, Beck?
Responses should be proportional and take civilians into consideration. Of course, Israel can't stand by and do nothing, but how many Israelis have been killed in the "upswing" or rocket attacks? Less than ten in recent months. How many Palestinians have been killed in IDF assaults on Gaza? A coupe of dozen. How many are likely to die as a result of the embargo from lack of electricity to hospitals and limitations on medical supplies? I would not want to guess.
It should probably also be pointed out that the situation is not as simple as Hamas rocket attacks Israel, Israel responds with a fuel cutoff. For several days before the upswing in violence the IDF had been attacking militant strongholds in Gaza. The attacks killed a number of militants but also several civilians. So, the Hamas response is a response to Israeli attacks (that is the tit-for-tat nature of the conflict).
As for a specific response, how about showing restraint initially? Israel does not need to launch incursions into Gaza, cut off power, or seal borders every time a few rockets hit Israel. It is not a necessity, especially given how infrequently the rockets actually kill Israelis. The response is just to show resolve to Hamas and show Israelis that the government is "doing something." It does nothing strategically or tactically.
A big step in the right direction might also be the reverse of current policy--send aid to Gaza and make a concerted effort to back moderates (though there may be few left at this point) rather than hammer everyone in the Strip for the actions of a small group. In line with this, Israel could explicitly back the Abbas government in the West Bank and train and arm PA security forces. There is a power struggle between Hamas and the PA. But the PA is too weak to quash Hamas in part because Israel has only agreed to give them the most basic resources needed to provide security to the country. As the PA forces attempt to become more legit they receive less support from the "sponsors of terror"; however, Hamas continues to receive such support. If Israel wants to undermine Hamas they need to help tip the balance between the two, which means providing more resources to the legitimate PA government. They don't because doing so states a clear intention to allow an independent Palestinian state, which, as shown in the last article, is a power struggle within Israel. So in many ways there is unlikely to be any progress until moderates in Israel can side-line the radical...much as in the PA.
So, who should make the first move? My read on the situation is that Hamas has no interest in stopping the violence (because it has more to gain from continuing it) and the PA government is too weak to oust Hamas or make major changes in Gaza (in part because Israel has kept them that way). Israel is the only party that is in a position to make changes that can better everyone. Actually backing the PA (not just tacitly accepting it as they have been doing) seems like the only way to go. If the PA forces are strong enough and if condition in the West Bank continue to improve as they have been, most Palestinians will likely turn from Hamas to the PA government, which is currently dominated by Fateh (also notice how quiet they have been). Sadly, this may involve some serious and bloody conflict between Hamas as the PA. This already happened in Gaza and Hamas won out, mostly because the PA forces are weak, disorganized, and were split between Gaza and the West Bank. But in the long run this would be better than the slow suffocation caused by sanctions and the like.
What is the supposed intention of embargoes like this? Hamas won't stop as a response because the more pain Israel inflicts on average Palestinians the more easily it can recruit militants. And the average Palestinian can't do anything to make Hamas quit--plus they are the only game in town at this point.
By way of an update: Last night's events underscore the futility of the embargo. Militants (read Hamas) blew up a football field-sized chunk of the Israeli-constructed border wall between Gaza and Egypt. Israel sealed the border on January 17th and then imposed fuel and other restrictions, and now Hamas has blown up the wall, allowing Palestinians to get cross into Egypt to buy supplies (at half the price they are in Gaza). So now Hamas wins twice in the eyes of Gazans. Once for standing up to Israel (again). And again for "liberating" the people from an attempted suffocation.
Regardless of which side anybody thinks is right or wrong and the moral issues surrounding the conflict, the recent Israeli blockade is just terrible strategy. All it has done is feed Palestinian support for Hamas by offering Hamas opportunities to take extreme actions. But this is the nature of the conflict. Again, the conflict won't be solved by punishing civilians in the hopes of crushing Hamas. A solution is only possible if Israel either launches an all out campaign of subjugation (which is likely to backfire in a terrible way and is a solution I would think it is loathe to pursue) or by truly assisting in the creation and development of an independent Palestinian state. Well, there is one more option. Israel could live up to its democratic moniker by extending equal rights and citizenship to all people living in Israel and the Occupied Territories. But that is the most unlikely outcome because it necessitates it suppressing its Jewish character.
Right, but the EU is still only addressing half the problem, Reed. Yes, collective punishment is bad. I get that. We all do. But so is firing rockets with the intently of doing damage and killing innocent people. And no, I don't see any inconsistencies with being more civil and friendly to a nation that [i]doesn't[/i] have their kindergartners chat "death to America" each morning and before sporting events. My bad. I'm [i]absolutely[/i] going to be more diplomatic with someone I have good relations with compared to someone else who openly professes to be my enemy, and prays for my destruction. Reed, please...
Regarding the rest of your points: I don't disagree with you... Every point is eloquently put, and just makes sense to a rational human being who genuinely desires to seek peace.
The problem is, not all of the parties at the table (maybe even none of them) seem compelled to make the choices required to come to that conclusion.
As I understand it, Hamas is opposed to the formation of a separate Palestinian state, as doing so tacitly recognizes the sovereignty of Israel as a separate state from Palestine, and relinquishes any Palestinian claim on Israeli territory.
Which, in case you were unaware (and I know you're not) violates their very mission statement.
So even if Israel and the PA come to an arrangement that happily establishes a Palestinian state tomorrow afternoon, Hamas is still out there, and is not going to stop their attacks or their opposition to the process. In fact, the PA still couldn't make an arrangement that would include Gaza, as they have absolutely no control there.
Hamas just isn't interested in Peace. So how do you live in peace with Hamas?
So the answer stands: Hamas makes another rocket attack into Israel. a handful of people die.
What should Israel do? Anything that involve an incursion or an attack into Gaza will likely cause civilian casualties. Mossad commando mission to kidnap those responsible have already been frowned upon by you and Pope... and doing nothing will likely get the ruling parties kicked out of office.
Now, integrating the Palestinians into the Israeli population, making them citizens, seem to be the best choice of all, to be honest. But, as you say, then Israel loses it's status as a Jewish state... But is that a bad thing? Meh. I'm sure if you asked an Israeli, their answer would be far more opinionated than my own...
Post a Comment