Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Please also refer to our data protection declaration.
The armed conflict between Israeli forces and the Hamas is escalating. What does this mean for Gaza, a region that was already heavily dependent on external aid? Questions for Dr. Muriel Asseburg, Senior Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.
What do you know about the humanitarian situation in Gaza?
Dr. Muriel Asseburg: The humanitarian situation in Gaza right now is catastrophic. There are several elements that come together. Firstly the bombings, in which a huge number of civilians, alongside Hamas fighters and leadership, are killed. As of last Wednesday, over 8300 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, almost 3500 of them children. The second element is the October 13 evacuation order, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the north trying to get to the south, some of whom are now living in tent cities, others who are living in completely overcrowded UNRWA facilities, and some who are living in the open, where they cannot find adequate shelter or adequate supplies. And the third element that makes the situation so precarious is the complete closure that Israel imposed on October 8. Since then, no food or medicine has come in across the Israeli border. Drinking water comes in very, very little quantities and only by the hour - and not to all parts of Gaza. Electricity is no longer being provided, and that has led to a complete breakdown in electricity supply, with disastrous consequences for the hospitals, for the drinking water supply, for the desalination plants, and for the sewage treatment plants, all of which are barely functioning or not functioning at all.
What could bring quick help?
There are now aid deliveries coming into Gaza through the Rafah crossing, following two intense weeks when nothing could be delivered at all. Since then, according to UNRWA, 143 trucks have come in. In reality, the UN says, it would take at least 100 trucks of aid every day to even begin covering the need on the ground. And, of course, it would need a reinstatement of drinking water supplies. In addition to fuel supplies, so that the generators of the hospitals, among others, can be operated again. What would be essential now are humanitarian ceasefires, so that the supplies would not only reach the south of the Gaza Strip, but also the north, where Palestinians are staying.
Do you understand the call for the evacuation of the northern Gaza Strip?
I can understand that. Of course, Israel has an interest in ensuring that the fight against Hamas and other militant groups does not produce the images that are now going around the world - of so many killed civilians. But the evacuation from the north cannot be implemented in this way. Because bedridden patients, old people, pregnant women, cannot go to the south at all. And there is no proper evacuation. That means people can't find proper shelter and they are not in a place where they are protected even in the south. That is very problematic. Another challenge is that Israel has not linked the evacuation order with a clear time limit and with a guarantee that the people will be able to return.
Do you see any possibilities for some kind of understanding between the Israeli government and Hamas?
At the moment, I don't see any possibility of a shared agreement for a ceasefire negotiation between the conflict parties. There has indeed been indirect agreements in the past. But that is not possible at the moment. The Israeli government's goal of dismantling Hamas structures and killing Hamas leaders and fighters is quite clear. There is no interest in reaching an understanding now - except with respect to freeing the hostages. Negotiations are actually taking place here, not directly between Israel and Hamas, but through third parties. And Israel does, of course, have a large interest in having the hostages freed.
But you don't see these hostage negotiations going beyond a certain scope.
No. On the part of Hamas, I think they are trying to link various issues here: hostage release in exchange for prisoners, cease-fire, humanitarian supplies. But I don't see Israel being willing to do that. And, Israel in particular is not ready for a broader cease-fire, but is now clearly pursuing the goal of the military destruction of Hamas and the restoration of its deterrence.
Where are the approaches to thinking ahead?
I see very great efforts in the international community to de-escalate. The shock of what happened on October 7 and the terrible pictures we are now seeing from the Gaza Strip make it clear to all concerned that there can be no going back to the status quo ante. The thought of continuing to manage or ignore the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian question in general - that it would actually no longer play a role for the region – is misguided.
And that's why I hope that the current diplomatic efforts will also provide an opportunity to start talking about sustainable arrangements for dealing with Gaza and the Palestinian issue in general.
And that there will be concerted action in this regard between the Americans, the important Arab states, and the Europeans.
What impact do you think the current conflict will have on the coming generations of children, i.e. the Palestinian children in Gaza, but also the Jewish children in Israel?
In both societies, the current happenings highlight once again the collective traumas that are so deeply inscribed in the population: the Shoah in Israeli society and the Nakba, that is, the flight and expulsion of 1948, in Palestinian society. As a result, societies cannot be empathetic with the other side. They are thrown back on the collective traumas and the helplessness associated with them. Ultimately, however, these can only be successfully dealt with if the conflict context does not continue to dominate everyday life. If there are perspectives that create security and economic and social development opportunities for both populations.
As far as economic development opportunities are concerned, conditions are increasingly unfavourable anyway. Periods of drought are driving the Middle East region into massive dependence on imports. What consequences does the conflict have for local food supplies and, above all, for food security?
The restrictions on local food production in Gaza are essentially political restrictions rather than those resulting from natural events and climate change. They are mainly due to the closure and establishment of a restricted zone along the border fence (inside the Gaza Strip) and with the restriction of the area in which Gaza's population is allowed to fish. It is to be expected that these exclusion zones will become much wider. At least that is how I understand the Israeli government's announcement that Gaza will be smaller after the war. And that is also how I interpret the bombardments, particularly in the north and east of the Gaza Strip: that the aim is to make these exclusion zones much larger. And that would then also significantly reduce the areas in the Gaza Strip that are predominantly used for agriculture today. It is also likely that the seaward closure will be tightened even further, so that fishing could be even more restricted.
Both of these occurrences would indeed be fatal for food production, and even more food would have to be imported into Gaza than has been the case so far.
And that would basically take away from what would actually be important: which is sustainability.
Yes, absolutely. But we have already had no conditions for sustainable development since the beginning of the closure in 2006, the tightening in 2007, and also under the so-called Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism of 2014. Rather, the economy in Gaza has completely collapsed and the population has become increasingly dependent on international support. Before the outbreak of this war, 80 percent of the population in Gaza was dependent on international support. Another contributing factor, in addition to the closure and the recurring armed conflicts, has been the prioritization of the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip, which has prioritized the continuation of the armed struggle. We are now seeing how much Hamas has invested in preparing for the war.
Where can international development policy start, beyond humanitarian aid, when on the one hand the need to promote development is so great, but on the other hand we are dealing with rulers like Hamas in Gaza, which has other priorities than development and sustainability?
We don't have to think now about how development cooperation could have been organized with an area like it was before October 7.
The issue now is to create a political framework after the war in which sustainable development is actually possible.
And that would mean largely free movement of people and goods for Gaza. I can only envision this as part of a negotiated arrangement - an arrangement that is negotiated and secured regionally and internationally. In fact, many plans have been put forward in the past as to what measures can be taken to make such an opening safe. And there are many elements that different countries and organizations can contribute. But only if there is such a political framework, reconstruction and economic recovery can work and also produce sustainable effects. Otherwise, we are talking about humanitarian aid, which ultimately can only mitigate the situation until the next armed conflict.
You said that in the Gaza Strip, climate change now plays a smaller role because there are bigger problems. But it remains a challenge. Would there perhaps also be opportunities to look for an approach here, in which Palestinian agriculture and Israeli agriculture work together on solutions to adapt to this change?
Theoretically, yes, and that would make a lot of sense in this small country. Practically, I don't see any basis for it at all at the moment, because there are no corresponding political contacts between the government in Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Nor can I imagine them in a situation in which the Israeli government insists that there is an exclusive claim by Jews to the entire territory, in which it is systematically weakening the Palestinian Authority, and in which the West Bank is also in a phase of escalation. It would be important to first prevent the West Bank from also experiencing a major armed escalation.
Let's assume that these political regulations are found. What role would the agricultural and food systems and their transformation then play?
I have to tell you in all honesty that it's hard for me to imagine right now. To me, what happened on October 7 puts all the arrangements that have to do with cooperation, that have to do with living together in Israel and the Palestinian territories and working together on problems, even further away than before. Right now, the odds are against cooperation, but towards separation, probably with much greater isolation for a relatively long time. How the present situation of existential conflict can give rise to close cooperation, which would be necessary in order to tackle the major ecological issues together, is something for which I have no imagination at the moment.
Where then can international cooperation begin to contribute to overall security in the Middle East?
What is needed is an internationally prepared arrangement that gradually leads to a settlement of the conflict in which both sides, both the Jewish-Israeli population and the Palestinian population, can realize their right to self-determination and in which a settlement is also found for dealing with the refugees.
What future do you see for Gaza?
There are basically five scenarios for Gaza's medium-term future. The first is a reoccupation and perhaps even repopulation of the Gaza Strip by Israel. The second would be an intensified closure, that is, the establishment of wide buffer zones and a closed border with Israel. The third would be the expulsion of a large part of Gaza's population; what the Palestinians see as a new Nakba. These three scenarios all fail to bring lasting stability and set in motion sustainable development. And there would be two other scenarios: One would be a robust UN peacekeeping mission and an international administration. And the last scenario would be that of a negotiated opening of Gaza in which the Americans, Arab states, and the Europeans take responsibility to shape a transition that takes into account the security needs of both populations as well as focusing on the Palestinian right to development. In my view, these latter two scenarios are the only ones that actually promise lasting security. However, I think the idea of a UN force and a UN transitional administration is very unrealistic because the Security Council is deadlocked on this issue. Between the U.S. on the one hand and Russia and China on the other, it's hard to imagine that anyone could agree on a model.