The strangulation of Gaza

New documents reveal the deliberate callousness and cruelty of the Israeli blockade.

I'm delighted to reveal that Amira Hass, the award-winning Israeli reporter and correspondent for Haaretz and a journalistic hero of mine, has written our cover story on Gaza for the New Year special issue of the New Statesman – which hits news-stands tomorrow. Two years on from the Israeli onslaught on the strip, Hass examines the legacy of the three-week war and asks whether Israeli troops are preparing for another conflict with the poor Palestinians of Gaza.

I've written a short "box" to go with her essay, in which I examine the ongoing Israeli-Egyptian blockade against the Gazans and note the release of three official Israeli government documents that suggest the Jewish state had considered "a policy of deliberate restriction" of basic goods into the strip.

Here's an extract:

In October, the Israeli human rights group Gisha published three documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that outlined the Israeli government's policy for permitting transfer of goods into Gaza prior to Tel Aviv's attack on the international aid flotilla on 31 May. The released documents showed that the Israeli state approved "a policy of deliberate restriction" of basic goods, including food and fuel, to people living in the Gaza Strip.

The published papers contained a series of mathematical formulae, created by the Israeli ministry of defence, to calculate the "product inventory" inside the strip. "The calculations are presumed to allow Cogat [Co-ordinator of Government Activities in the Territories] to measure what is called the 'length of breath'," the Gisha website notes. "The formula states that if you divide the inventory in the Strip by the daily consumption needs of residents, you will get the number of days it will take for residents of Gaza to run out of that basic product, or in other words, until their 'length of breath' will run out."

The documents expose the cynicism of Israeli government officials – and yet, as the media analysis website Media Lens has remarked, not a single British newspaper has reported on their existence.

Read the whole piece in the magazine tomorrow.

In the meantime, check out the Gisha website for the full selection of documents, translated from Hebrew into English.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn turns "the nasty party" back on Theresa May

The Labour leader exploited Conservative splits over disability benefits.

It didn't take long for Theresa May to herald the Conservatives' Copeland by-election victory at PMQs (and one couldn't blame her). But Jeremy Corbyn swiftly brought her down to earth. The Labour leader denounced the government for "sneaking out" its decision to overrule a court judgement calling for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) to be extended to those with severe mental health problems.

Rather than merely expressing his own outrage, Corbyn drew on that of others. He smartly quoted Tory backbencher Heidi Allen, one of the tax credit rebels, who has called on May to "think agan" and "honour" the court's rulings. The Prime Minister protested that the government was merely returning PIPs to their "original intention" and was already spending more than ever on those with mental health conditions. But Corbyn had more ammunition, denouncing Conservative policy chair George Freeman for his suggestion that those "taking pills" for anxiety aren't "really disabled". After May branded Labour "the nasty party" in her conference speech, Corbyn suggested that the Tories were once again worthy of her epithet.

May emphasised that Freeman had apologised and, as so often, warned that the "extra support" promised by Labour would be impossible without the "strong economy" guaranteed by the Conservatives. "The one thing we know about Labour is that they would bankrupt Britain," she declared. Unlike on previous occasions, Corbyn had a ready riposte, reminding the Tories that they had increased the national debt by more than every previous Labour government.

But May saved her jibe of choice for the end, recalling shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith's assertion that the Copeland result was an "incredible achivement" for her party. "I think that word actually sums up the Right Honourable Gentleman's leadership. In-cred-ible," May concluded, with a rather surreal Thatcher-esque flourish.

Yet many economists and EU experts say the same of her Brexit plan. Having repeatedly hailed the UK's "strong economy" (which has so far proved resilient), May had better hope that single market withdrawal does not wreck it. But on Brexit, as on disability benefits, it is Conservative rebels, not Corbyn, who will determine her fate.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.