Gaza

by

Gaza Buffer Zone: Impact on Population Density

Early on in the conflict in Gaza Israel unilaterally decided to create a buffer zone stretching from the top right hand corner of Gaza ie. the North East corner by Beit Hanoun down to the Egyptian border. A distance of approximately 48 kilometres. The zone would be 1 kilometre wide so would steralise 48 square kilometres of Gaza territory.

Gaza comprises 360 square kilometres per the CIA World Fact Book which also records a population in the Strip of 2.1m people. This works out at 5,833 persons per square kilometre (ppsqk). This slightly more than London at 5,608 ppsqk but less than Tokyo at 6,362 ppsqk. When the 48 square kilometre’s are taken off however Gaza’s populations density increases to 6,730 ppsqk exceeding that of Tokyo.

Of course the Gaza strip is not a City it is a… territory. If you were to compare with a nearby country, say Israel the population density there is circa 400 ppsqkm.

The reason for the buffer zone is to protect against another 10/7. But there is currently a 20 foot high fence around the whole of Gaza and a blockade of its coastal waters. Will a kilometre wide buffer provide greater security? Or will it just reduce further the land available in the occupied territory?

by

“plus ca change”

A deadly attack on the al-Tabin school by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was justified on the grounds that it was a command and control centre for Hamas terrorists. Hospitals have also been attacked because of the terrorists alleged to be hiding there. This betrays a very inclusive definition of terrorists which has been maintained for a long time by the IDF. The cartoon below was produced by Gary Trudeau in 1982 and seems to capture the expansive view that continues to be adopted.

It is uncomfortable finding humour in such matters. The cartoon relates to when the the PLO was driven out of Beirut by the IDF, which was followed by a massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese Shia refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

The massacre at the time involved the killing of somewhere between 1,300 and 3,500 civilians and was condemned by the UN General Assembly as an act of genocide. The US and a number of other nations objected to the term genocide. As the number of those killed approaches 40k and the number of cultural, religious, educational and medical buildings are flattened when will the definition of genocide become appropriate?

The power of the Trudeau cartoon is its revealing the absurdity of claims which are so extreme as to be absurd. Claims which attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Doonesbury cartoon taken from “The Hundred Years War on Palestine” by R. Khalidi. Profile Books 2020.

by

“Don’t look now!”

Over recent weeks there seems to have been an acceleration of the actions by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and a greater willingness to attack targets which ought to be off limits under International Humanitarian Law. Is this a result of the election season which has seen France and the UK involved in snap elections, and the US engaged in the marathon process they have to elect an new president?

All eyes have been focused on domestic issues and will continue to be so for some time. International issues discussed at the recent NATO summit in Washington focused, as one might expect on threats against NATO members. However, it also spent a good deal of time confirming support for Ukraine, much to be applauded, although they are not (yet) a NATO member.

Given its defensive posture focused on member’s borders the absence of any focus on Gaza is perhaps not a surprise. As a potential source of instability linked to Iran and the wider middle East it might have justified some comment as a contingent risk.

Whether NATO might have commented or not, there appears to be a total lack of political focus on amongst the key external players on what is happening in Gaza and the West bank at the moment. Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be taking maximum advantage of this to the despair of the Palestinian people, and to those in the west, and around the world, watching a process of ferocious but slow motion Genocide taking place before our eyes.

by

Ceasefire Negotiations?

There is much talk of negotiations of a ceasefire in Gaza inching closer and closer. Notably that is without representatives from Israel yet. Will this prevent a ground invasion of Rafah? My guess would be no. If there is a ceasefire it will at best provide a temporary respite. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that such a campaign is vital to secure victory in his war against Hamas.

The most likely scenarios are that Israel will not accept the proposed terms with a massive propaganda campaign about how they threaten the security of Israel. Alternatively, a ceasefire is put in place with Israel promising to open up crossing points to allow aid and medical support in and then slow-walking the implementation. Putting a myriad blockages in the way of significant and appropriate scales of aid, all under the rubric of security.

The ceasefire will breakdown amid claims of breaches and failures and the bombing will restart. And shortly after that a ground campaign in Rafah supported by another propaganda barrage about the perfidy of Hamas.

The only way a ceasefire might hold is if PM Netanyahu is replaced. Replaced by someone who can see that the unremitting devastation being wreaked on Gaza and the aggressive settler action in the West Bank are starting to create a momentum in global public opinion against Israel. Hamas may or may not ultimately be destroyed but Gaza already has. And yet when the fighting stops there will still be 2m Palestinians in the devastated territory. What is Israel going to do about that?

Israel’s leaders should remember the diplomatic dictum States do not have permanent allies, they have permanent interests. If Israel’s current allies start to feel their interests in a strong military presence in the Middle East can be served by another, and the public pressure to stop supporting Israel continues to mount there might be a change to the shape of the Middle East but one which is highly inimical to Israels interests. Such an outcome would be dreadful. But worst of all it would be largely self inflicted.