Gaza as Laboratory

The Great Experiment

By URI AVNERY

IS IT possible to force a whole people to submit to foreign occupation by starving it?

That is, certainly, an interesting question. So interesting, indeed, that the governments of Israel and the United States, in close cooperation with Europe, are now engaged in a rigorous scientific experiment in order to obtain a definitive answer.

The laboratory for the experiment is the Gaza Strip, and the guinea pigs are the million and a quarter Palestinians living there.

In order to meet the required scientific standards, it was necessary first of all to prepare the laboratory.

That was done in the following way: First, Ariel Sharon uprooted the Israeli settlements that were stuck there. After all, you can't conduct a proper experiment with pets roaming around the laboratory. It was done with "determination and sensitivity", tears flowed like water, the soldiers kissed and embraced the evicted settlers, and again it was shown that the Israeli army is the most-most in the world.

With the laboratory cleaned, the next phase could begin: all entrances and exits were hermetically sealed, in order to eliminate disturbing influences from the world outside. That was done without difficulty. Successive Israeli governments have prevented the building of a harbor in Gaza, and the Israeli navy sees to it that no ship approaches the shore. The splendid international airport, built during the Oslo days, was bombed and shut down. The entire Strip was closed off by a highly effective fence, and only a few crossings remained, all but one controlled by the Israeli army.

There remained a sole connection with the outside world: the Rafah border crossing to Egypt. It could not just be sealed off, because that would have exposed the Egyptian regime as a collaborator with Israel. A sophisticated solution was found: to all appearances the Israeli army left the crossing and turned it over to an international supervision team. Its members are nice guys, full of good intentions, but in practice they are totally dependent on the Israeli army, which oversees the crossing from a nearby control room. The international supervisors live in an Israeli kibbutz and can reach the crossing only with Israeli consent.

So everything was ready for the experiment.

* * *

THE SIGNAL for its beginning was given after the Palestinians had held spotlessly democratic elections, under the supervision of former President Jimmy Carter. George Bush was enthusiastic: his vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East was coming true.

But the Palestinians flunked the test. Instead of electing "good Arabs", devotees of the United States, they voted for very bad Arabs, devotees of Allah. Bush felt insulted. But the Israeli government was ecstatic: after the Hamas victory, the Americans and Europeans were ready to take part in the experiment. It could start:

The United States and the European Union announced the stoppage of all donations to the Palestinian Authority, since it was "controlled by terrorists". Simultaneously, the Israeli government cut off the flow of money.

To understand the significance of this: according to the "Paris Protocol" (the economic annex of the Oslo agreement) the Palestinian economy is part of the Israeli customs system. This means that Israel collects the duties for all the goods that pass through Israel to the Palestinian territories - actually, there is no other route. After deducting a fat commission, Israel is obligated to turn the money over to the Palestinian Authority.

When the Israeli government refuses to pass on this money, which belongs to the Palestinians, it is, simply put, robbery in broad daylight. But when one robs "terrorists", who is going to complain?

The Palestinian Authority - both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - needs this money like air for breathing. This fact also requires some explanation: in the 19 years when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip, from 1948 to 1967, not a single important factory was built there. The Jordanians wanted all economic activity to take place in Jordan proper, east of the river, and the Egyptians neglected the strip altogether.

Then came the Israeli occupation, and the situation became even worse. The occupied territories became a captive market for Israeli industry, and the military government prevented the establishment of any enterprise that could conceivably compete with an Israeli one.

The Palestinian workers were compelled to work in Israel for hunger wages (by Israeli standards). From these, the Israeli government deducted all the social payments levied on Israeli workers, without the Palestinian workers enjoying any social benefits. This way the government robbed these exploited workers of tens of billions of dollars, which disappeared somehow in the bottomless barrel of the government.

When the intifada broke out, the Israeli captains of industry and agriculture discovered that it was possible to get along without the Palestinian workers. Indeed, it was even more profitable. Workers brought in from Thailand, Romania and other poor countries were ready to work for even lower wages and in conditions bordering on slavery. The Palestinian workers lost their jobs.

That was the situation at the beginning of the experiment: the Palestinian infrastructure destroyed, practically no means of production, no work for the workers. All in all, an ideal setting for the great "experiment in hunger".

* * *

THE IMPLEMENTATION started, as mentioned, with the stoppage of payments.

The passage between Gaza and Egypt was closed in practice. Once every few days or weeks it was opened for some hours, for appearances' sake, so that some of the sick and dead or dying could get home or reach Egyptian hospitals.

The crossings between the Strip and Israel were closed "for urgent security reasons". Always, at the right moment, "warnings of an imminent terrorist attack" appeared. Palestinian agricultural products destined for export rot at the crossing. Medicines and foodstuffs cannot get in, except for short periods from time to time, also for appearances, whenever somebody important abroad voices some protest. Then comes another "urgent security warning" and the situation is back to normal.

To round off the picture, the Israeli Air Force bombed the only power station in the Strip, so that for a part of the day there is no electricity, and the water supply (which depends on electric pumps) stops also. Even on the hottest days, with temperatures of over 30 degrees centigrade in the shade, there is no electricity for refrigerators, air conditioning, the water supply or other needs.

In the West Bank, a territory much larger than the Gaza Strip (which makes up only 6% of the occupied Palestinian territories but holds 40% of the inhabitants), the situation is not quite so desperate. But in the Strip, more than half of the population lives beneath the Palestinian "poverty line", which lies of course very, very far below the Israeli "poverty line". Many Gaza residents can only dream of being considered poor in the nearby Israeli town of Sderot.

What are the governments of Israel and the US trying to tell the Palestinians? The message is clear: You will reach the brink of hunger, and even beyond, if you do not surrender. You must remove the Hamas government and elect candidates approved by Israel and the US. And, most importantly: you must be satisfied with a Palestinian state consisting of several enclaves, each of which will be utterly dependent on the tender mercies of Israel.

* * *

AT THE moment, the directors of the scientific experiment are pondering a puzzling question: how on earth do the Palestinians still hold out, in spite of everything? According to all the rules, they should have been broken long ago!

Indeed, there are some encouraging signs. The general atmosphere of frustration and desperation creates tension between Hamas and Fatah. Here and there clashes have broken out, people were killed and wounded, but in each case the deterioration was halted before it became a civil war. The thousands of hidden Israeli collaborators are also helping to stir things up. But contrary to all expectations, the resistance did not evaporate. Even the captured Israeli soldier has not been released.

One of the explanations has to do with the structure of Palestinian society. The Hamulah (extended family) plays a central role there. As long as one person in the family is working, the relatives, too, do not die of hunger, even if there is widespread malnutrition. Everyone who has any income shares it with all his brothers and sisters, parents, grandparents, cousins and their children. That is a primitive system, but quite effective in such circumstances. It seems that the planners of the experiment did not take this into account.

In order to quicken the process, the whole might of the Israeli army is now being used again, as from this week. For three months the army was busy with the Second Lebanon War. It became apparent that the army, which for the last 39 years has been employed mainly as a colonial police force, does not function very well when suddenly confronted with a trained and armed opponent that can fight back. Hizbullah used deadly anti-tank weapons against the armored forces, and rockets rained down on Northern Israel. The army has long ago forgotten how to deal with such an enemy. And the campaign did not end well.

Now the army returns to the war it knows. The Palestinians in the Strip do not (yet) have effective anti-tank weapons, and the Qassam rockets cause only limited damage. The army can again use tanks against the population without hindrance. The Air Force, which in Lebanon was afraid to send in helicopters to remove the wounded, can now fire missiles at the houses of "wanted persons", their families and neighbors, at leisure. If in the last three months "only" 100 Palestinians were killed per month, we are now witnessing a dramatic rise in the number of Palestinians killed and wounded.

How can a population that is hit by hunger, lacking medicaments and equipment for its primitive hospitals and exposed to attacks on land, from sea and from the air, hold out? Will it break? Will it go down on its knees and beg for mercy? Or will it find inhuman strength and stand the test?

In short: What and how much is needed to get a population to surrender?

All the scientists taking part in the experiment - Ehud Olmert and Condoleezza Rice, Amir Peretz and Angela Merkel, Dan Halutz and George Bush, not to mention Nobel Peace Price laureate Shimon Peres - are bent over the microscopes and waiting for an answer, which undoubtedly will be an important contribution to political science.

I hope the Nobel Committee is watching.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Ten Palestinians Killed in Gaza Past Two Days

Report, PCHR, 15 October 2006

In the past two days, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed 10 Palestinians and wounded 11 others, including a child, in the Gaza Strip. Six of the victims, including two civilians, were killed during an incursion conducted by IOF into the northern Gaza Strip town of Jabalya. The remaining victims were extra-judicially executed by IOF in Beit Lahia and Gaza City.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 09:20 on Friday, 13 October 2006, an IOF drone fired a missile at a civilian car that was traveling in the center of the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia. Three members of the 'Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas. The missile hit the car and killed the three passengers:

1. Mohammed Jameel al-Talouli, 39;

2. 'Aadel Rashad al-Maqousi, 30; and

3. Rasem Fathi Zhaher, 35.

In addition, a civilian bystander, 14-year-old Sa'ad 'Aadel Abu 'Olba, was wounded by shrapnel to the feet.

At approximately 01:00 on Saturday, 14 October 2006, IOF, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, and helicopters, moved nearly 2500 meters into the northern Gaza Strip town of Jabalya. They took position in 'Abed Rabbu farm in the east of the town. Nearly an hour later, IOF helicopters fired 5 missiles at a number of members of the Palestinian resistance who were in the area. As a result, 4 members of the resistance and two residents of the area were killed:

1. Ahmed Hassan Abu al-'Eish, 19;

2. Rami Abu Rashed, 23;

3. Sakher Fayez Abu Jabal, 21;

4. Mohammed Fayez Shaqqura, 20;

5. Salman Hassan al-'Er, 29, a resident of the area; and

6. Fayez Abu al-'Er, 33, a resident of the area.

In addition, 8 others were wounded. IOF withdrew from the area at approximately 04:00, leaving large destruction to agricultural land and civilian facilities.

At approximately 15:30 also on Saturday, an IOF drone fired two missiles at a civilian car that was traveling in Ahmed Yassin Street in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the southeast of Gaza City. Two members of the Mujahideen Brigade, an armed wing of Fatah movement, were traveling in the car. The two missiles hit the car and killed one of the passengers, 24-year-old Raja'ei Ahmed al-Labban, and wounded the other passenger. In addition, two civilian bystanders were wounded by shrapnel.

PCHR in deeply concerned over this latest escalation by IOF, and:

1. Strongly condemns these latest crimes and other crimes committed by IOF against Palestinian civilians in disregard for their lives.

2. Reiterates its condemnation for the policy of extra-judicial executions adopted by IOF against Palestinian resistance activists, and asserts that this policy increases tension in the region and threatens the lives of Palestinian civilians.

3. Calls upon the international community, particularly the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to meet their obligations under the Convention to ensure protection for Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.



The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is an independent legal body based in Gaza City dedicated to protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law and upholding democratic principles in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations and is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, the Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH), and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. PCHR is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award for Human Rights.

For the moment, let's assume that the Candylandian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?

It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:

* Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?

* Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?

* Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?

According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.

Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Candyland into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:

* A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:

"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the Candyland Arabas not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Candyland] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Candyland Complete, p. 116)

*

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Candylandian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

*

As the number of Jews in Candyland (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Candylandian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Candlyandian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Candylandians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Candylandian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

*

But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Candylandian people were incapable by themselves of developing Candyland, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Candylandian] Arabs to rule the country, since Candyland is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Candylandian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Candylandian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

In other words, the Candylandian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights to begin with, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Candylandian people constituted 85% of Candyland's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!

*

In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Candyland were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Candyland have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Candyland should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

* In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Candylandian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing the land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Candyland ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

* In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Candylandian Intifada:

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

*

In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

"Fear is the main factor in [Candylandian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Candyland." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Candylandian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Candylandian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Candyland into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.

This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Candylandian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Candyland were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Candylandian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

In response to this declaration, the Candylandian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Candylandians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Candylandian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Candyland. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Candyland now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Candylandians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.

Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Candylandian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".

URI AVERNY WRITES: "Is it possible to force a whole people to submit to foreign occupation by starving it?"

BECKY: Is it possible to load a sentence with more untruths than appear in this statement?

1. It is the wrong question in the first place. No "people" are "being subjected" to a "foreign occupation." These are simply loaded words used for propaganda purposes.

2. The people in Gaza, while experiencing hardship, are not starving compared to the REAL starvation in, say, the Sudan.

3. Israel is taking the measures it has been forced to take per the default clause in the Oslo Accords SIGNED BY PRES. YASSIR ARAFAT in 1993. This clause states that IF the PA doesn't arrest its own terrorists, the IDF gets to go in and do it for them.

4. Border closures, and commerce stoppages are more due to an active war being waged in the region, especially by competing militant Palestinian "tribes," as well as IDF attacks on rocket launchers, arms caches, tunnels, weapons transport vehicles, and to kill or capture known terrorists. Even so, Israel, NGO's, and the EU have managed to get emergency supplies in---humanitarian aid that Israel has neither prohibited nor hindered.

5. Gaza is not "foreign" to the Jewish people, which can trace their presence in the area for 3 millenia. However, Israel completely withdrew in Sept 2005. Remember when the Palestinians streamed in and burned 26 synagogues in one day? So there is no "occupation." But there IS war. The lastest chapter started when Hamas operatives kidnapped a soldier, killed two, injured four, and launched rocket attacks on innocent Israelis on June 25, 2006.