Israel’s dual-use policy fueling hatred in Gaza Strip

Usually, international attention on the plight of the people of Gaza only becomes significant when a war breaks out between Hamas, which controls the Strip, and Israel. Otherwise, there is very little interest shown by the international community, despite the ongoing, heart-wrenching humanitarian crisis there. Certainly, in times of war, as we saw as recently as last May, the suffering of the people of Gaza is at its most extreme when they face the onslaught of one of the region’s most powerful military regimes, with scores of civilians — and not only Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants — killed and injured, along with the further destruction of their already crippled infrastructure.
But in the aftermath of these battles, for which Hamas is a major culprit, concern for Gaza and its people fades from the world’s consciousness and conscience, leaving this small strip of land left behind to lick the wounds of war, of Israel’s permanent harsh blockade and of its failed and oppressive Hamas government.
Since Hamas won the election of January 2006 — and particularly since its complete takeover of the Gaza Strip in June of the following year — the people of this tiny enclave, which is squeezed between Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean, have suffered immensely from Israel’s punitive policies. It is almost impossible to discern which of Israel’s actions are in response to legitimate security concerns and which are part and parcel of its continuous and heartless policy of punishing the 2 million people of the Gaza Strip, most of whom are refugees, for voting for Hamas in the first place and for not toppling it in the intervening years.
Ultimately, any solution to the dire situation in Gaza must be a political one, as part of the wider drive to bring the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis to a peaceful and just conclusion. Until this happens, it is essential that Gaza be allowed to develop economically, irrespective of how unpalatable to Israel those who govern it are. This means allowing economic activity, including the free movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, without compromising anyone’s security.
One of the most controversial policies that is hindering business and trade activities is the restrictions Israel has imposed on a long list of items it defines as “dual-use.” In other words, commodities that are in principle designed for civilian use, but also have the potential to be used for military purposes. A new report by the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, entitled “Red Lines, Gray Lists,” provides an in-depth analysis of the crippling impact of Israel’s prevention of dual-use goods from entering Gaza. It rightly claims that these restrictions “have stunted construction and reconstruction, as well as economic development, in violation of Gaza residents’ fundamental rights.”
Admittedly, much of what is on the list might well also be used to manufacture weapons and ammunition or even build tunnels and bunkers, but the inclusion of many other items seems to be completely arbitrary and makes little sense. Pipes, gravel, cement and steelwork are essential to the construction industry but could also be used by militants for their own purposes, as are, for instance, fertilizers. But this cannot be an excuse to keep an economy that provides for millions of people hostage to Israel’s security concerns and indefinitely condemn them to extreme poverty.
According to the Gisha report, the mechanisms that were established to allow goods, including dual-use items, to enter Gaza have improved since May 2021 to include basic construction materials. But “Israel’s inconsistent, non-transparent decision-making process adds to the confusion surrounding construction and reconstruction in Gaza,” and so perpetuates a major problem.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that, in many cases, the long list of dual-use goods contains broad categories and not only individual items, which leads to arbitrary, localized and often inconsistent decision-making. It is not always clear whether this vagueness is a deliberate attempt to make the lives of people in Gaza as miserable as possible and force them to cave to Israel’s every whim or whether it is merely the nature of a faceless and indifferent bureaucratic mentality that unnecessarily complicates the situation while being utterly oblivious to the suffering it causes innocent people.
For a long time, some listed items were completely ridiculous and at one point they even included paper, toys, chocolate and coriander, which would have put almost every household in the world under suspicion of being a makeshift weapons workshop. Can one imagine a single kitchen in the Middle East that does not stock coriander? Such goods were eventually removed from the list, but the logic of the restrictions has remained in place, which is that, in the name of Israeli security, almost any kind of prohibition is permissible, including those that violate the basic rights of millions of people who pose no security risk at all.
Under international law, an occupying power must ensure the well-being of the occupied, including their access to food, drinkable water, hygienic conditions and medical care, among other obligations. Israel claims that it is not an occupying force because it withdrew from the Strip back in 2005. However, the land, sea and air blockade it has imposed for the last 15 years makes it an occupying force in all but name, since it controls so much of the locality, with the exception of the crossing to Egypt. International law also prohibits collective punishment and much of what Israel inflicts on Gaza can only be described as exactly that.

It is essential that Gaza be allowed to develop economically, irrespective of how unpalatable to Israel those who govern it are.

Yossi Mekelberg

Needless to say, Israel has the right to defend itself and Hamas has emerged as a major enemy whose substantial military assets have proved capable of hurting it. However, Hamas does not pose an existential threat and condemning millions of Palestinians, who have nothing to do with its militancy and neither actively or passively support it, to extreme poverty is inhuman, lacks common sense and is contaminated by short-termism, serving only to fuel more hatred and further radicalization.
At the end of the day, as important as allowing the entry of dual-use commodities to the Gaza Strip may be, this restrictive policy above all reflects a lack of vision on the part of Israel’s civilian and security authorities in their relations with the Palestinians, particularly with Gaza. It might be time to reconsider these policies and aspire for Gaza to become a prosperous place, not only because it is right and just, but because it will serve Israel’s security much better in the long run.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg