Gaza: President Says Blockade Must End

Jan 27, 2009

Will the Administration Explore Talks with All Parties to the Conflict?

Jim Fine, Legislative Secretary for Foreign Policy

"As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce," President Barack Obama declared on January 22 in introducing his new Middle East envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell (ME). But more than a week after the January 18 cease-fire, Israel continues to restrict the flow of aid and daily supplies into Gaza.

On January 26 the Israeli army blocked relief workers from World Vision and Save the Children from entering Gaza. Since the cease-fire, Israel has allowed in only half of the fuel oil needed to operate Gaza's electric power plant at full capacity and only 30 percent of the cooking gas Gazans normally use every day. No gasoline or diesel fuel, except for U.N. vehicles, has been allowed in since November 5. Truck traffic into Gaza has been limited to between 15 percent and 25 percent of the normal number. The cement and other building materials needed to rebuild the 4,000 destroyed and 17,000 damaged houses but have not yet been allowed in. Thousands of people in Gaza remain without municipal water while Gaza's water department waits for Israeli approval to bring in parts needed to repair its war-ravaged system.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, prolonged by Israel's policy of restriction, poses an early test that the Obama administration cannot avoid. Already, some critics charge that there is no difference between the Israeli-Palestinian policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. The charge is premature. But neither is there yet any decisive evidence to refute it. If the Obama team allows Gaza's suffering to continue, it will be hard to prove the sharpest critics wrong.

Signs of Real Change in Policy

Obama's January 22 statement could be a signal that the United States will support a rapid opening of the Gaza crossings to aid and civilian commerce. That would be a real change from the Bush administration policy of supporting the Israeli blockade as a means to undermine Hamas rule. The statement could also be read, however, as continuing the Bush policy of putting a price on meeting basic civilian needs: relief aid, as well as commerce, will not be allowed to flow until Hamas meets Israel's conditions for a lasting cease-fire. Time, but not a great deal of time, will tell which interpretation is correct.

In other respects, as well, the president's January 22 remarks were a study in ambiguity. "I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days, and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza," the president said. "Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long."

But Obama prefaced his concern with a clear endorsement of the Israeli military operation that has left more than 1,300 dead and 4,000 wounded, nearly half of them civilians. "We will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats," he declared. "For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people." Obama offered no suggestion that the right of self-defense is subject to any limitations. He did not mention that the six-month cease-fire that took effect in June 2008 had all but ended rocket fire from Gaza until a lethal Israeli bombing of tunnels inside Gaza on November 5. Nor did he give any hint that the cease-fire could have been restored and extended if Israel had relaxed its blockade of Gaza.

How Will the Obama Administration Deal with Hamas?

Whether or not the Obama administration presses Israel to permit the free flow of relief and reconstruction supplies into Gaza will be the first real test of its Israeli-Palestinian policy. The second test will be how it handles Hamas. Israel and the Bush administration tried to isolate and topple Hamas, which won more than 40 percent of the vote in the most recent Palestinian elections, by depriving Gaza's civilian population of basic needs. The alternative was and still is to deal indirectly with Hamas by encouraging it and the Fatah movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to form a national unity government and to work with that government. Once again, Obama's remarks on January 22 offered no indication of which way his administration might go.

The appointment of Mitchell as the administration's Middle East envoy has raised hopes among those who seek an end to the suffering and real progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. Mitchell negotiated an end to the troubles in Northern Ireland by including all parties at the table. Obama is sending him to the region this week with authority to speak for the president. It will not be possible to avoid for long the key choices that will determine whether Obama's policy is a continuation of his predecessor's or change the Middle East can believe in.