Beyond a cease-fire, Gaza needs help

By Rayyan al-Shawaf
The Daily Star
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

These days, the tottering cease-fire between Israel and Hamas - brokered by Egypt just over one month ago - is getting some international attention. This certainly is a welcome sign, though the danger is that an already exasperated international community will consider cementing the cease-fire as an end in itself. If this happens, we can expect even less thought to be paid to Gaza's mounting humanitarian crisis. That would be a tragedy, as the shortage of food, medicine, and fuel is acute, unemployment is the norm, and one of the poorest and most densely populated strips of land on earth is sinking into outright destitution.

Hamas won Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 - upsetting many, including Israel - and wrested control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah after a brief but bloody struggle in June 2007. Since then, there has been a lot of confusion among Israelis as to the difference between, on the one hand, refusing to deal with Hamas politically, due to the Islamist organization's obstinate refusal to recognize Israel's right to its exist; and on the other, blockading Gaza and preventing the entry of indispensable deliveries of food, medicine and fuel. Israel may be within its rights to refuse to deal with Hamas - even if Hamas was democratically elected - but collective punishment of Gazans is another issue altogether.

That Nobel Peace Prize laureates such as South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former US President Jimmy Carter could not convince Israel to lift its siege was worrisome, but at least they got people talking about the subject. Now that the focus is on a cease-fire, it is critical that people not ignore the impending humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Forget about trying to convince Israel and Hamas to talk to one other. Not only is this unrealistic, but ultimately the issue of mutual recognition is unnecessary, as it has already been achieved between Israel and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. The issue in Gaza is simply to find a way for Israel and Hamas to arrive at a modus vivendi. After much dithering - largely at the expense of the Palestinians it claims to represent - Hamas has finally recognized that control of Gaza enjoins it to behave responsibly toward its neighbor. Yet Israel - perhaps because it is the stronger party in the equation - even now remains wary of accepting the new status quo. Although it signed on to the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire, it has since allowed only a trickle of much-needed supplies into Gaza.

Pressure brought to bear on Israel must have two goals. The first is the immediate amelioration of Gazans' suffering through the full lifting of Israel's siege. The second objective is the long-term rehabilitation of the territory through a series of steps to which Israel is, in theory, already committed. For example, Israeli officials concede that large numbers of Gazan laborers will eventually be allowed back into Israel; for obvious reasons, this should be permitted sooner rather than later. A complementary strategy for breathing life into the Gaza economy is the long-discussed creation of new industrial zones on the edge of the strip. Yet none of this will be achieved if the Quartet and other countries do not take an active interest in Gaza and compel Israel to meet its obligations.

Another important reason the international community should pay close attention to Gaza is the necessity of deterring Israel from launching a future ground assault on the territory. Israeli hawks have long advocated a large-scale invasion of Gaza as a means of ending the firing of rockets on Israeli towns. Such action would not only fail to solve the problem of rockets in the long-term, but would result in more death and destruction for the already battered Palestinians. Without international vigilance, however, the Israelis may feel like they have free reign. Indeed, once Hamas frees its captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, as part of a prisoner exchange, the Israeli government may well decide that there are no more obstacles in the way of a ground assault. If so, Israel would seize upon the next Palestinian infraction to justify sending tanks into Gaza.

This scenario becomes even more likely when one takes into account Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's enthusiastic backing of talks with Syria. Though the chief appeal of a breakthrough with the Syrians is that it would overshadow Olmert's financial misconduct, a willingness by Israel to cede the Golan Heights to Syria would also mitigate criticism of the sort that depicts Israel as obstinate and militaristic. A temporary Israeli reoccupation of Gaza might not look so bad if accompanied by preparations for a withdrawal from the Golan.

Together, these factors make it vital that the major powers extend their concerns beyond the mundane technicalities of a shaky cease-fire. The deeper issues of resuscitating a moribund Gaza Strip and warding off possible Israeli military encroachment deserve urgent attention. Rule by Hamas is a bitter pill for the international community to swallow, as is the elusive nature of unaffiliated Gazan groups that recklessly continue to fire rockets into Israel. However, this unfortunate reality cannot justify apathy in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. Consigning Gazans to a life of abject poverty and disease until the replacement of Hamas is not only frightfully immoral, but politically unsound, as it undermines popular Palestinian acceptance of the very compromises with Israel that the international community so eagerly advocates.

Rayyan al-Shawaf is a freelance writer and reviewer based in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=94371