Israel is refusing to allow seven Fulbright scholars to leave Gaza, resulting in the cancellation of their scholarships. This seems, to put it mildly, somewhat at odds with Israel's state goal of supporting moderates in Gaza. The students are not terrorists, or suspected of being connected to terrorists; Israel is just refusing to let anyone cross the border except for medical reasons*.
Israel has legitimate security concerns which the fence has allayed; terrorists have switched from deadly suicide bombings to largely inaccurate missile and mortar attacks that rarely kill anyone. But it is also turning Gaza into an open air prison, and crushing any chance for the moderation we would all like to see. Whether you think the US government's foreign policy sins were monstrous or negligible, 9/11 probably didn't make you think "They can get us! We should change to accomodate them!". Probably, like me, you thought "Time to unleash some righteous whoop-ass". The Palestinians feel the same way, which is not surprising, since there are very few novel human emotions. Gratuitous exercises of raw power, like preventing a few Fulbright scholars from going to the US, are not going to put any meaningful pressure on the Palestinians. But it is going to make them even madder and more convinced that Israelis are bastards who can't be trusted.
* For those who keep asking why Egypt doesn't let them out through their border, Israel has ringfenced the entire Gaza strip with walls that it controls and monitors. As I understand it, there is basically one pedestrian border crossing to Egypt, Rafah, which is run by an international mission called EUBAM, but EUBAM gets access to the Rafah crossing through the Kerem Shalom crossing point which Israel controls, so when Kerem Shalom is closed--as it is--so is Rafah.
I'm sorry, when you say "terrorists" do you mean Palestinian terrorists or Israeli terrorists?
Not letting people cross a border is the equivalent of murdering thousands of people by crashing a plane into the world trade center?
As I recall, the people of Gaza had no trouble blowing the border open to Egypt with explosives a few months ago. Neither does there seem to be any cessation of importing firearms and ammunition through smuggling tunnels to their southern neighbor. But eight students present an impassable quandary?
Perhaps the people of Gaza need to rethink their priorities.
Oh great. Here comes a round of people writing that Israel doesn't really control the Palestinian borders or waterways, which would come as quite a surprise to the IDF, or the Israeli media, who talk about it matter-of-factly....
1) The State Dept. denied the students Visas, assuming Israel would not let them leave. Israel had not decided yet. There is a case coming before the Israeli Supreme Court this week.
2) The State Dept. has reinstated the visas.
Readers may wish to review previous interactions between Gazans and the Fulbright committee.
Sigh. The technical military term for what Israel is doing is a "siege", and it is not known for producing warm feelings towards the besiegers. Israel has also done a little bit more in Gaza than closing the borders, like killing many more Palestinians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis. That the Israelis did this to kill terrorists among them doesn't make the Palestinians feel any better about the matter.
I'm not interested in a normative debate about who's right, any more than I want to debate the justice of Al Qaeda's grievances. I was making a positive statement about how populations react to acts of war, which is not usually by a sudden breaking of national will.
Oh, dear. Not a lot of depth there, Rickm.
I, too, see perusing your link that you've gone and copied & pasted a past comment of mine on your sorry-assed little blog. (That would be the one devoted to, ahem, firing Megan. A whole blog devoted to ranting at her? Rather pathetic, don't you think? Almost pathogolical.)
Well, you're free to do (and copy) what you like, but for the record -- contrary to your assertion I'm not one of your little dweeb posters.
Okay . . . all that said, my symapthies to everyone in the Mideast. An ugly, sorry situation -- made no better by buffoons like Rickm and his geek gang of losers.
The technical military term for what Israel is doing is a "siege"
It most certainly is not. A siege normally requires that supplies be cut off, the objective being to starve out the besieged fortification and capture it. Israel has no desire to capture Gaza, and although it clearly hinders the movement of goods, it hasn't attempted to starve the Gazans, which is easily within it's power.
The technical non-military term for what Israel is doing is "closing the borders," which they have every right to do, at least as to borders between Israel and Gaza (the Egypt-Gaza border and the sea lanes are a different case).
Freddie, if you don't want people (like me) questioning your assertions, then back them up with more than your own vehemence. You didn't do that last time and so far you haven't tried this time, either. Forgive me my skepticism; it is unusual for a border between two jurisdictions (Egypt and Gaza) to be controlled by a third entity, and it's a bit surprising that the Egyptians tolerate it.
Megan per Eric J’s 1:20pm post, an update would seem to be in order. It looks like Israel had a policy in place that made allowances for some students to leave Gaza to study abroad and when the US State Department found out about it, they quickly reversed their decision and the seven affected students will now be able to leave to study in the US.
Rob, you can't post links here. But you can check Al Jazeera, you can check the BBC, you can check Haaretz, you can check the Post, you can check the Sun, you can check the New York Times, you can email Gershom Gorenberg or Juan Cole, you could take a class at any number of Middle East studies departments, you could write the IDF or the Israeli government. You say that Israel is a third party, but the Israeli government, of course, does not consider the Palestinian territories an independent country. (Why do you think they call it an occupation?)
What drives me crazy is that you don't know who controls the borders, and you admit that you don't; and yet you persist in contradicting Megan based on what you presume, or what "makes sense to you." Now everyone is entitled to weigh in on matters on which they don't have a lot of expertise; I do it. But it would be nice if you would occasionally defer to people who actually have been doing this research-- some of us professionally and academically-- rather than continuing to talk about what you presume to be the case.
I was making a positive statement about how populations react to acts of war, which is not usually by a sudden breaking of national will.
One way in which the Palestinians of Gaza, and to a somewhat lesser exent in the West Bank, are reacting to the whole situation is by producing a whole big passel of little tykes who'll be able to take up the fight before too long. Gaza and the West Bank have just about the highest birthrates in the world outside some counties in sub-Saharan Africa. Israel's birthrate is high by developed-country standards but it ain't nothin' compared to the rabbit-like Palestinians.
1) you can post links, just not too many per comment. If you have one from a reputable source--preferably the IDF itself--post it, or just slap the URL in text form. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong.
2) I'm perfectly happy to defer to, say, SoV, if the subject is Weibull distributions or Wilcoxan signed-rank analysis. And I'd defer to you on the history of art, or to our gracious hostess on financial risk analysis, and I presume many people here would defer to me on a question of trademark law. But deliberate misinformation, laughable rhetoric, and plain old human error are so rampant on this subject that I trust approximately no one.
Put another way, I don't think that most people actually know the things they think they know, and I think the people who actually do know usually have an agenda. So when things don't add up, I presume something is missing.
Rob,
I'm skeptical that someone who thinks that the IDF is the most reputable source for basic facts about the Israel/Palestinian conflict would listen to Human Rights Watch (I mean, they are the ones documenting human rights violations), but here ya go:
hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/26/isrlpa17891.htm
Peter:
What else do you expect them to do? How can they watch TV if Israel blows up the power plant? Or cuts off electricity? That's one of the few fun things they can do(not babies but the sex part).
rickm, I didn't say the IDF was the most reputable source for all information (not at all), but consider the nature of the information at issue here: border control. If they say they're controlling a border, it would come as a true shock to find out that they weren't. Esecially as so many people are eager to damn Israel for controlling the borders.
That HRW piece, accepted as 100% true, doesn't support the claim. It describes a "former" IDF post on the border, and mentions Egyptian border forces struggling to contain the breaches and "keeping the border closed." No mention of IDF troops doing the same.
Maybe this history can help...
When Israel withdrew from Gaza, they asserted their authority to control all of Gaza's borders, airspace, and sea lanes. In an agreement brokered by Condi Rice, they grudgingly agreed to allow the Rafah border crossing to be controlled by the Palestinians and Egyptians, with EU oversight. When Hamas took over, the EU left, claiming that they were their to oversee Fatah's border control. The current actual practical status is that Egypt asserts control over most of the border. When the border fence was over run a few months back, their were no IDF soldiers in sight. In December of '07, hundreds of Palestinians crossed back and forth at Rafah (for the Hajj) against Israel's wishes. And from Reuters on the Jan 2, 2008 crossing, directly in defiance of Israel's wishes. This article, bizarrely, after stating that 2200 people had crossed against Israel's wishes, states that Israel has complete control of this border.
Agreements and assertions were made that, if followed to the letter, would make Israel a full partner in all Egypt/Gaza border crossings. So, nominally, this is true. However, as has been shown repeatedly, by Egypt's selectively allowing border crossings to happen in a place where Israel has no physical presence, the practical situation differs from the nominal situation.
If Israel controls this border crossing, then why do the Egyptians get to decide who crosses?
And the irony is that the only recent Israeli government to understand this and be able to act on it was that of Ariel Sharon.
Now, his plan may have been to hand the Palistinians a state and then end up at war with it, but at least that offered some kind of way forward...
From the Jerusalem Post:
"The IDF closed down Highway 10 along the Israeli-Egyptian border from Gaza to Eilat Thursday night in a concrete sign of heightened Israeli concern that the breached border between Gaza and Egypt will lead to increased terrorism against Israel."
Highway 10 runs along the southern border of Gaza and Israel all the way to Egypt.
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1201070788334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The IMEMC reports that "the Israeli forces that completely control Gaza's borders have sealed the border even to the UN emergency aid vehicles."
And,
"On Thursday, in the midst of a large-scale military invasion of Gaza in which 34 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces over the last week, including nineteen dead in a single day on Tuesday, Israeli forces sealed the border completely."
imemc.org/article/52367
rickm, again, your sources don't really bear on the specific question of whether the IDF is in control of the Gaza-Egypt border. I don't doubt that they control the Gaza-Israel border. (Also, I can't make the jpost link work, so I can't see if there's a map depicting highway 10.
On the other hand, the denial of UN food shipments does lend support to the "siege" claim.
rickm: The Jerusalem post article states quite plainly that Israel is beefing up security along the Israel/Egypt border. It goes on to state that Egypt has control over the Egypt/Gaza border, and has allowed crossings.
and the other article, while not explicitly stating to which border they refer, seems to be addressing the Israel/Gaza border that has been sealed.
On the narrow point of "Who controls the border between Egypt and Gaza?", which is the point under question, you've provided no evidence to indicate that it is anyone other than Egypt. There is certainly no evidence here to indicate that Israel has any kind of physical presence either in Rafah or along the actual fence.
Google maps shows an unlabeled highway (no labels at all in Israel) that essentially runs along the Gaza-Israel border. Maybe that's Highway 10; if so, it has nothing to do with Egypt-Gaza crossings.
But it is going to make them even madder
Too funny. The idea that Gazans are going to get really mad at the thought of 8 Fulbright scholars being prevented from getting their MBA's in the USA is ridiculous. It would be, what, 864 on the list of the top 500 grievances the Gazans have against the Israelis. I can just see it now:
Gazan 1: The Israelis kill our countrymen, close our borders, take land that is rightfully Palestinian, refuse to permit a right of return, prevent fuel and other provisions from coming into Gaza.
Gazan 2: Yes, that all irks me.
Gazan 1: Also, they prevent Gazan Fulbright scholars from getting MBAs in the USA.
Gazan 2: Well, now I'M REALLY MAD!!!! WE MUST TAKE ACTION! HOW DARE THOSE HEINOUS ISRAELIS INTERFERE WITH GAZANS GETTING THEIR MBA!
There is certainly no evidence here to indicate that Israel has any kind of physical presence either in Rafah or along the actual fence.
And continuing in my theme of "things that don't make sense to me," it doesn't take a West Point grad to realize that, given that the IDF isn't in Gaza in force on a daily basis, the Egypt-Gaza border is a skinny line between hostile forces, and it would be all too easy for even a poorly organized and poorly armed mob to cut it off from help or generate an incident by causing an armed incursion into Egypt.
The IDF is many things, but tactically stupid isn't one of them.
To answer the narrow question as to who 'control's the Gaza-Egyptian border, I would answer that the party mostly in physical control is Egypt--however, if you think Egypt's presence on the border isn't at all influenced by Israel, then you're deluding yourself. And Israel's presence is still felt. From the Turkish Daily news: " Though Israeli inspectors no longer man the border terminal, Israel still runs it by controlling whether European monitors assigned to Rafah under the crossings agreement can report to work. If the monitors don't show up, the terminal remains closed." And I think Megan's point in her footnote still stands, even more so because no one has refuted it. The answer to the larger question of who controls Gaza is undoubtedly Israel. Israel controls everything along the Israel-Gaza border, blockades the coast, controls the airspace, and exerts hegemony of Egypt's border control. This allows Israel to punish Gaza with harsh sanctions that cause power outages, starvation, and a lack of medical supplies that results in death.
rickm:
you're wrong about Rafah. The bit you quoted from the Turkish Daily news was true three years ago, before Hamas took over, before the current state of closed borders. The European monitors (EU BAM) refuse to monitor the crossing because the original EU BAM mandate required Fatah's presence at the border. This has nothing to do with whether or not Israel will let them do the monitoring. See here.
This is the second time that I've refuted Megan's foot note point. This time with referency goodness. It may be true that the EU has returned, although I am not aware of that.
Clearly, Israel does have some say over who crosses that border, simply from a diplomatic stand point. But, as has been shown by the articles I referenced above, Egypt has indeed shown a willingness to allow border crossings against Israeli wishes. Thus, to state that Israel controls this border is categorically false.
Whether the fact that Israel does not control all of Gaza's borders has any impact on the aptness of the term siege, I'll let others decide for themselves, but I know what I think.
The EUBAM Rafah suspension of border monitoring activities can be verified in their own words here:
http://www.eubam-rafah.eu/portal/
Are we done with this point yet?
RMH-
The quote from the Turkish Daily News was from April of 2007.
Furthermore, from B'Tselem:
"Israel continues to exercise complete control over the movement of goods into the Gaza Strip. The three crossing points designated for this purpose – Karni, Sufa, and Kerem Shalom – are under Israel 's sole control. Rafah Crossing, the administration of which was handed over to the Palestinian Authority, has a terminal for the crossing of goods, but according to the November 2005 agreement, the crossing is limited to exports. The importance of the PA's independent ability to export goods via Rafah Crossing is limited, given that most of the exports are intended for Israel or are shipped abroad via Israeli ports. As a result, most exports pass through Karni. Israel 's almost complete control of the movement of goods to and from the Gaza Strip has far-reaching consequences: Israel 's decision to close the commercial crossings, a frequent occurrence, paralyzes the Gaza Strip economy and causes a shortage of basic goods, including food and medicines."
And,
"Despite the handover of the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt to the control of the Palestinian Authority, Israel continues to control the entry into the Gaza Strip of persons who are not deemed residents of the Occupied Territories . According to the November 2005 agreement between the PA and Israel , the Palestinian Authority may permit entry into the Strip via Rafah only to "Palestinian residents," i.e., individuals who are registered in the Palestinian population registry and hold Palestinian identity cards. Also, the Palestinian Authority must prevent the entry of Palestinian residents if Israel opposes their entry for security reasons. To ensure compliance with the agreement, European observers are posted at the Rafah crossing.
"Foreign" residents, except those in a few categories, are only allowed to enter the Gaza Strip via the Kerem Shalom and Erez crossings, which are under Israel 's sole control. Control over the entry of "foreigners" enables Israel to continue to control family unification between Gazans and their spouses who are foreign residents. Also, Israeli control plays a decisive role in social and economic systems, which rely on the presence of experts from abroad."
Fascinating, fascinating- good guys and bad guys, all with seemingly interchangeable hats.
I wonder when the discussion will turn to the responsibility of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab nations who for years used the Palestinians as pawns- enough support to fight, not enough to thrive - to step forward and help.
Why doesn't Egypt control their border with Gaza? Why doesn't Egypt supply water and electricity? Why don't we ever hear from Jordan? Remember when Israel took the West Bank it was really Trans-Jordan and part of that kingdom.
As long as the full responsibility of a Mid-East peace lies solely within a Israel/Palestine/US discussion it will arrive with Godot. The Arab world must engage and take responsibility.
ABD-
I don't know where you reside, but I'm an American citizen. My government supplies mountains of financial, military, an ideological aid to Israel. My voice, to the extent that it is heard at all, only reaches the ears of US citizens. Once I learn Arabic I'll tell the Arabs to get their act together.
sigh... you keep confusing what was agreed to in November of '05, which involved EU monitored Palestinian Authority control over the Rafah crossing, with the actual current situation, which doesn't involve either the Palestinian Authority (because Hamas killed them) or the EU observers (because they left).
You have an excellent point about the Rafah Crossing's lack of real commercial viability, which speaks to the larger issue of Israel's control of the Gazan population. But the point remains that Israel has zero physical presence on the Egypt/Gaza border, and zero physical presence at Rafah. No matter how many times you reference news articles that mention the 11/05 agreements, it will not change the fact that those agreements are not currently being enforced - principally because one of the parties to those agreements, the PA, no longer controls Gaza.
Your government supplies a similarly sized mountain of aid to Egypt and Jordan.
Based on some googling I'm also having trouble with the notion that Israel controls the Egypt-Gaza border.
Stories reporting on e.g. the border breech seem to support the notion that it was Egypt's problem to solve and that Israel, while upset, couldn't do a whole lot about it. Egypt appears reluctant to keep the border open because, like any rational country, they aren't thrilled about the idea of having open borders with a territory ruled by Islamic militants.
I second the various comments about the odd comparison of 9/11 and travel restrictions on Fulbright scholars. Seems like these aren't even remotely comparable acts. Also agree that it's silly to think that people who routinely fire rockets at Israelis (and would suicide bomb them if they could) only kinda hate the Jews -- but that this Fulbright thing is going to put the hatred over the top.
Of course the point isn't whether the Fulbright stuff will make'em really mad. That's just McArdle using journalistic provocation.
The question I ask is: Could Israel have used the Fulbrights as an opportunity to diminish Palestinian hatred and if so, at what cost if any, to security.
I'm going to hazard a guess that allowing the Fulbrights to travel would have done exactly zero to diminish Palestinian hatred. Couldn't prove it though -- just a hunch.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
Article 17:
The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.
Article 23:
Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.
**********************************
So. Israel can start by announcing its intention to move all "wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases" out of the Gaza Strip and into, oh, refugee camps in the West Bank.
Hamas, if it is wise will comply with the directive to enter into such an agreement, because Israel is only bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention in relation to non-parties if the non-party "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Convention. If it is unwise, it will refuse, and the Convention shall cease to apply.
Then Israel will be permitted to prohibit virtually all shipments of food into the Gaza Strip, since either there will be no "children under fifteen . . . [or] . . . maternity cases" in the Gaza Strip, or because the Fourth Geneva Convention will not apply to the conflict and it is not obligated to allow the passage of anything.
Hamas can then surrender to Israel under such terms as Israel dictates, or everybody in the Gaza Strip can die of starvation, or the people of the Gaza Strip can overthrow Hamas and seek peace with Israel.
No matter what path is taken, the Gaza conflict will be over before the next U.S. President gets inaugurated, and entirely within the bounds of international humanitarian law.
Okay, I've ben reading maps for the last half hour, and I can't figure out how anyone who can read maps can say *some* of these things with a straight face.
(1) All of the border crossings that are mentioned are in Israel's border with Gaza.
(2) Google Maps shows a clearly marked road leading right up to the Egyptian border with Gaza.
(3) As noted above, the Gazans have successfully broken through the Egyptian border, and as Fox was showing just today, there are tunnels running under the border --- to Egypt. I suspect that if a Fox News reporter can find them, the Egyptians can find them.
It seems very very difficult to conclude that Gaza is encircled by Israel. It may be that Egypt and Israel are cooperating to keep the border closed -- and it clearly fits with Arab ideas of Realpolitik to keep the Gazans bottled up and a festering sore than to let them out where they might make a life --- but saying the Israelis alone are keeping the Gazans in just seems unjustified.
You know, as in wrong. Mistaken. Not true. False to fact.
QED, it's an interesting thought, but consider --- the same Geneva Conventions forbid indiscriminate atacks on civilians. When's the last time you heard a Gazan denounced as a war criminal? I'm afraid the Israelis --- and the US, for that matter --- pretty well have to assume that the "laws of war" are just political tools, applied by the less fastidious against the more fastidious.
Of course, I could be wrong --- just get back to me when you hear of a Hamas or Fatah official being brought to the Hague.
Opening the border with Gaza incurs risk. I think 3 Israeli soldiers and 2 civilians were killed this year in attacks on crossings. Hamas launched attacks while fuel and medical supplies were being brought in. Relying on it to behave differently for the sake of those Fulbright scholars is a questionable tactic.
It is a sad situation, and perhaps Israel should open the crossings, but it's not a simple decision, putting soldiers's lives at risk for the sake of Palestinian Fulbright scholars.
Israel's logic is very simple. Securely closing the border reduces the risk of any form of explosive coming in. I see Megan wants to frame closing the border as comparable to 9/11, a surprise act like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The comparison is silly and I think shows a very strange bias.
...crushing any chance for the moderation we would all like to see....
That's it, we would have had peace in the middle east if not for this closure. After all, the Gazans do little that is really harmful. All they do is:
largely inaccurate missile and mortar attacks that rarely kill anyone.
Rarely. That's not so bad.
It is simply untrue that "Israel has ringfenced the entire Gaza strip with walls that it controls and monitors," and it is simply untrue that Israel controls Rafah.
Please see the section entitled "Reuters’s False Allegation of Israeli Control Over Gaza Borders," as well as the final paragraph of the "Update" section, here:
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=1422
This discusses more than one instance where Egypt and Hamas decided -- to Israel's chagrin -- to let Gazans through the Rafah crossing. Megah, Israel obviously does not control Rafah. Is a correction not in order?
(And in case anyone is tempted to distract from the salient points raised in the article by attacking the messenger, spare us. Most readers of this blog are far too sophisticated to fall for the old ad hominem fallacy.)