Israel allows some once-banned products into Gaza

[CptSternn]

http://tinyurl.com/28g47uy

JERUSALEM – Israeli and Palestinian officials say Israel has allowed some formerly banned food items into the Gaza Strip after widespread international criticism of its three-year-old blockade.

Palestinian liaison official Raed Fattouh says Israel has lifted the ban on soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, chips, cookies and sweets. He said Wednesday some products have already entered Gaza.

Israel imposed the blockade after militant Hamas seized control of Gaza. It's been under pressure to ease the embargo following a deadly clash last week with pro-Palestinian activists on board a flotilla trying to breach the blockade.

Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity pending a formal announcement, say the move is meant to defuse pressure for an international investigation of the raid.

[CptSternn]

Looks like all the international attention is having a positive effect. I mean, seriously, how is banning soda and sweets any sort of real achievement? How anyone can back a ban which includes such items and still say with a straight face it is all about 'security' is beyond me.

[Despanan]

Banning those things in the first place is more likely a result of beuracratic laziness than "Just being a douchebag".

Someone in charge probably said: "Nothing gets by!" and the underlings went, "Really? Nothing?" and the guy said "You heard me, nothing!", which was followed up by "What about-" and yet another "NOTHING!".

Now that we have the rest of the world, the guy is forced to re-examine his policy of "nothing", and is quickly realizing it's idiocy.

I highly doubt there was some wizended old Jew sitting in a dark room tapping his fingers and cackling over his plan to deprive the Palestians of soda and shaving cream.

[JCC]

I don't think support for Israel should blind us to the fact that the blockade is a sordid business and the banning of such items is an example of negligence towards a great many suffering people if not forthrightly malicious.

[Saya]

They are intentionally banned, items such as that are considered "luxury items", so if they aren't deemed necessary they don't get through, normally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101002.stm This has a good overview of what is and isn't allowed, at least before this recent lift.

Some basic foodstuffs and medicine are allowed into Gaza, but the UN says a whole host of other items, from building materials to footballs, musical instruments and lightbulbs, have not been allowed in.
Israel says steel pipes and fertilizer can be used to make the rockets Palestinian militants have fired in hundreds at Israeli towns, while cement can be used to build launching pads.
Other goods are blocked as they are considered "non-essential" or "luxury" items.
Virtually all exports are blocked, which has devastated Gaza's economy, pushing unemployment to 40%. Some 80% of the population live in poverty, if aid is discounted, according to UN figures.
Half Gaza's population depends on UN rations which cover only two-thirds of dietary requirements. Many families have little or no income with which to make up the shortfall.
Restricted fuel supplies for Gaza's power plant mean frequent power cuts; the power, water and sewage systems are in dire need of spare parts.

When the blockade was tightened in June 2007, an Israeli official described the policy in off-the-record comments as "no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis", Michael Bailey of Oxfam told the BBC.
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahyu, said he had never heard this phrase.

But he said there is not now, and has never been, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Basically they deny they need these things in Gaza.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by JCC

I don't think support for Israel should blind us to the fact that the blockade is a sordid business and the banning of such items is an example of negligence towards a great many suffering people if not forthrightly malicious.

I agree with this. I'm just leery of assuming deliberate malice with what can be easily attributed to negligence.

However, given what Saya posted, Malice is looking a bit more likely.

[Delkaetre]

When assembling a blockade there are two aims- one is to deprive the actual aggressors of things they can use for aggressive purposes (weapons and weapon building materials), and the other is to demoralise the populace so they'll be far more willing to accept whatever terms are offered, if terms are offered. It's easier to claim victory over a desperate, unhealthy, malnourished, unwashed population with no steady power and no steady water or sewage treatment than it is to claim victory over a people healthy and comfortable enough to still resist.

Technically this second reason comes under 'collective punishment' and was pretty thoroughly outlawed after the second world war, but for some reason the UN hasn't called time on the blockade yet.

[gothicusmaximus]

I don't think malice is the motive here. If you've already committed yourself to maintaining a nebulously legal blockade, to err on the side of attrition is simply less of a hassle, especially considering that every incoming vessel you inspect could potentially be manned by greasy long-hairs itching to club the shit out of you with pipes.

[JCC]

I wasn't saying that it was malicious, I was saying that even if it isn't, the fact that they have been negligent with an issue concerning so many lives means that they are still open to harsh criticism regardless. As it turns out, soda and cookies aren't a pressing issue, but it betrays a mindset on the part of Israel towards the blockade which is far from salubrious for the Palestinian civilians.

[gothicusmaximus]

I sensed in your and Despanan's posts the suggestion of a distinction between reproachable negligence and active malice. I think these excessive proscriptions are probably due more to the former than the latter.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delkaetre

when assembling a blockade there are two aims- one is to deprive the actual aggressors of things they can use for aggressive purposes (weapons and weapon building materials), and the other is to demoralise the populace so they'll be far more willing to accept whatever terms are offered, if terms are offered. It's easier to claim victory over a desperate, unhealthy, malnourished, unwashed population with no steady power and no steady water or sewage treatment than it is to claim victory over a people healthy and comfortable enough to still resist.

Technically this second reason comes under 'collective punishment' and was pretty thoroughly outlawed after the second world war, but for some reason the un hasn't called time on the blockade yet.

+1

............

[KontanKarite]

Just curious... Did anyone on here say that Israel was in the right for doing the blockade or did most of us just say that we understand why they did it?