By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following attacks by Israeli and U.S. forces on Iran, all crossings into the Gaza Strip, including the vital Rafah crossing, were shut down on Saturday, as announced by the Israeli government agency COGAT. This closure severely restricts the flow of humanitarian aid and medical evacuations for Gaza’s displaced population, which remains heavily reliant on external assistance. Despite repeated claims by COGAT of sufficient food deliveries, organizations like Human Rights Watch and the United Nations continue to report critical shortages of essential supplies within the strip.
Read the original article here
The Israeli government agency COGAT has announced that crossings into the Gaza Strip, which are crucial for delivering humanitarian aid and allowing patients to receive medical evacuation, have been closed. This development coincides with reports of Israeli and U.S. forces launching attacks against Iran. The closure affects vital transit points, including the Rafah crossing on the southern border with Egypt, a crossing that had only recently been reopened in early February to permit a limited number of Palestinians, particularly those requiring urgent medical attention, to pass through.
The implications of this closure are profound, considering that virtually the entire population of Gaza, exceeding two million people, has been displaced due to Israel’s ongoing offensive in the region. The strip remains heavily reliant on external humanitarian assistance for its survival, making the sealing of these entry points a critical concern for the already dire humanitarian situation.
There is a sentiment that this action reflects a pattern of extreme cruelty, and that it’s a particularly callous moment to ignore the ongoing events in Gaza and the hardships faced by Palestinians in the West Bank. The perception is that these actions could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Palestinian population and seize their land, raising uncomfortable comparisons to historical atrocities.
The act of closing humanitarian corridors during such a volatile period is seen by some as an opportunistic move to commit further atrocities while international attention is diverted. The argument is made that such actions are difficult to separate from the context of war and can be easily framed as war crimes, with the suggestion that Israel is willing to inflict suffering even for what some perceive as minor provocations.
The assertion that Israel is engaging in a systematic form of apartheid is strongly voiced, with the claim that despite any pronouncements of ceasefires, the underlying reality of oppression and violence against Palestinians has not changed. The notion of a genocide in Gaza is not dismissed lightly, with critics arguing that the systematic nature of the actions and the severity of the suffering point towards such a conclusion.
Concerns are also raised about the effectiveness of international support for Israel, with some questioning the unconditional nature of this backing, especially in light of the humanitarian crisis. The comparison to historical events, such as the Holocaust, is invoked to highlight the potential gravity of the situation, suggesting a level of intent that is deeply disturbing.
There’s an understanding that this situation is not unexpected, given past patterns of behavior, and that the justifications for the current actions might be manufactured. The idea that the conflict with Iran provides a convenient backdrop to obscure other events, or to intensify existing actions, is a significant concern. The notion of the crossings being closed due to potential retaliatory strikes from Iran, as a precautionary measure, is also considered, though the immediate impact on humanitarian access is the primary focus.
The question is raised about why neighboring countries, specifically Egypt, do not open their borders to alleviate the crisis in Gaza, acknowledging the complexities of national sovereignty and borders. However, the primary focus remains on Israel’s actions and the implications for the people of Gaza, who are seen as having little left to lose.
The decision to close borders during a period of heightened regional tension, with potential missile launches, is debated. Some question the rationale of keeping borders open under such circumstances, while others argue that closing them exacerbates the existing suffering. The argument that there is no genocide in Gaza is countered by claims that any pretext, even something as minor as a sneeze, could be used to justify further atrocities by Israeli leadership.
The framing of Hamas as an Iranian proxy is noted as a justification for broader actions against Iran and its perceived allies. The concern is that this narrative is being used to legitimize a wider conflict and potentially signal the end of Gaza as a distinct entity. The responsibility of neighboring countries to provide refuge is also brought up, alongside the argument that such support is complicated by existing borders and geopolitical alliances.
The historical context of the Holocaust is brought up again, not to draw direct parallels, but to emphasize the devastating consequences that can arise during times of war and societal upheaval. The ongoing nature of the conflict and the claims of a ceasefire being one-sided are central to the criticisms, suggesting that violence against Palestinians has continued unabated.
The rhetoric surrounding the conflict and the perception of a deliberate campaign of extermination are deeply troubling. The idea that certain political factions might issue orders that evoke historical atrocities is a stark warning. The ongoing debate about the nature of the conflict and the justifications offered by all sides underscores the complexity and the deeply entrenched animosities involved.
The narrative of Palestinians being pushed to support adversaries due to their treatment by Israel is a recurring theme. The argument is that the constant fear of violence and land dispossession leaves little room for positive relations. The expectation that Palestinians should remain civil towards Israel in the face of perceived ongoing genocide is seen as unrealistic, especially when compared to the reactions of other nations to perceived threats.
The fundamental issues of governance and the choices made by elected officials are brought into the discussion, emphasizing that elections are meant to provide a mechanism for change. The apathetic approach to political participation is criticized, as it allows for decisions that have far-reaching and devastating consequences. The question of who is expected to cheer for whom in such a conflict highlights the deep divisions and the lack of empathy that can characterize such situations. The current situation is viewed as a predictable, yet horrifying, outcome of ongoing political dynamics and the lack of effective intervention.