Sanctions on Gaza, particularly those enforced by Israel and supported by various international actors, have long been justified as a means to pressure the governing authority, Hamas. However, these sanctions have had devastating consequences for the 2.3 million civilians living in Gaza, who are caught in a cycle of poverty, deprivation, and isolation.

Here is a case for why Gaza should not be under sanctions:

1. HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AND COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

Sanctions have contributed to a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Access to basic necessities like food, clean water, medical supplies, and electricity is heavily restricted. Gaza’s infrastructure is in a state of near total collapse, with hospitals struggling to provide care and clean drinking water in critically short supply. The United Nations has repeatedly declared Gaza “unlivable,” and the situation continues to deteriorate. The principle of collective punishment, which penalises the entire population for the actions of a governing body, violates international law and basic human rights.

2. ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

The blockade and sanctions have crippled Gaza’s economy. Industries that once thrived, such as fishing, farming, and manufacturing, have been decimated by the incessant bombings since 8 October. Unemployment rates have also soared, across all age groups and particularly among the youth, creating a generation that is unable to find work or build a future. The lack of economic opportunities fuels despair, instability, and desperation. Removing the siege, embargo and sanctions could revive Gaza’s economy, allowing people to regain their livelihoods and dignity.

 3. SANCTIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING POLITICAL GOALS

Sanctions have not achieved their stated political goals. The blockade has never weakened Hamas. Instead, it has increased polarization and suffering. History shows that sanctions often fail to bring about meaningful political change, particularly when they primarily affect civilians.

 4. FOSTERING PEACE AND STABILITY

Lifting the sanctions could foster peace and stability by reducing the suffering. People who are able to live with dignity, access basic services, and participate in a functioning economy are more likely to seek peaceful solutions to political problems. Economic development and improving the quality of life could create conditions more conducive to peacebuilding.

5. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

The international community has a moral responsibility to ensure that policies, including sanctions, no longer disproportionately harm civilians. The people of Gaza, many of whom are children, deserve the right to live without the constant threat of deprivation and isolation. Sanctions only deepen the sense of injustice and victimization, perpetuating the cycle of violence and retribution. Lifting the sanctions would be a step toward addressing this moral and humanitarian catastrophe.

 The sanctions imposed on Gaza also violate:

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: The right to self-determination is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and is a fundamental principle of international law. The principle recognizes the right of all peoples to determine their own political status, to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and to manage and dispose of their own resources. The sanctions imposed on Gaza by the international community have deprived the people of Gaza of their right to self-determination, as they have no control over their political, social, and economic situation.
2. THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND THE RIGHT TO HEALTH: Protected under international law, the right to food and the right to health are essential human rights that are recognized under various international treaties and agreements. The sanctions imposed on Gaza have severely restricted the importation of food, medicine, and other essential goods, which has resulted in a humanitarian crisis in the region. The people of Gaza are struggling to access basic necessities, such as food, water, and healthcare, which is a violation of their human rights.
3. THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY: The principle of proportionality is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law that requires military actions to be proportionate to the military objectives sought. The sanctions imposed on Gaza have always been disproportionate to the objective of putting pressure on Hamas to change its behaviour. The sanctions have created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza that has affected the most vulnerable people in the region, including children, women, and the elderly.

In conclusion, Gaza should not be under sanctions and are illegal under international law. The sanctions violate the right to self-determination, the principle of proportionality, and the right to food and health, which are protected under international law. The sanctions are also a form of collective punishment that violates the human rights of innocent civilians.

Sanctions have also proven to be ineffective, counterproductive. Instead of imposing sanctions, the international community should explore alternative approaches to ensure that the people of Gaza can exercise their right to self-determination and access basic necessities, such as food, water, and healthcare. By doing so, we can create a peaceful future for the people of Gaza and Israel.

TYPES OF SANCTIONS ON GAZA

There are several sets of sanctions that have been imposed on Gaza by U.S, Israel and various other countries and international bodies. Some of the key sanctions include:

1. ISRAELI BLOCKADE: Gaza has been under a comprehensive Israeli blockade since 2007, which severely restricts the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory. The blockade has been condemned by many human rights organizations as a form of collective punishment.
2. S. SANCTIONS: The U.S. government has imposed a number of sanctions on Gaza over the years, including designating Hamas as a terrorist organization and targeting individuals and entities with ties to Hamas for financial sanctions. In addition, the U.S. has used its influence at the United Nations to block aid and development projects in Gaza.
3. EUROPEAN UNION SANCTIONS: The European Union has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and imposed financial sanctions on individuals and entities with ties to the group. The EU has also restricted the import of goods from Gaza, particularly those that could be used for military purposes.

Specifically, the sanctions on Gaza primarily take the form of a blockade and a range of restrictions that severely limit the movement of people, goods, and essential supplies.

These sanctions can be categorized into several types:

1. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

•  Trade Restrictions: Gaza faces strict limitations on the import and export of goods. Only specific items are allowed to enter, and many essential materials (such as construction supplies, certain industrial equipment, and raw materials) are heavily restricted. These sanctions have crippled Gaza’s economy, especially its manufacturing and agricultural sectors, by restricting exports and hampering business activities.
• Restricted Imports: Items deemed “dual-use” (which could potentially be used for military purposes) are tightly controlled or banned altogether. This includes concrete, steel, and even some medical supplies. As a result, rebuilding infrastructure destroyed in attacks on Gaza has been severely delayed.
• Export Restrictions: Gaza’s ability to export goods such as agricultural products, textiles, and manufactured goods is also heavily restricted, which limits economic growth and access to international markets.

 2. MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS

•  People: The movement of people in and out of Gaza is extremely limited. Most Palestinians cannot leave Gaza, except for urgent medical cases, students, and a few others who meet specific criteria. Gaza residents wishing to travel must get permits, which are difficult to obtain, leading to isolation from the rest of the world.
• Goods: While some goods enter through official crossing points controlled by Israel and Egypt, many are restricted or subject to delays. This affects the availability of basic necessities like food, medicine, and fuel.
• ENERGY AND FUEL RESTRICTIONS
• Electricity: Gaza suffers from chronic electricity shortages due to restrictions on fuel imports and damage to infrastructure. Prior to 7 October 2023, the population often have access to electricity for only a few hours a day, which affected hospitals, water supply, sanitation, and everyday life.
• Fuel: The fuel required to power Gaza’s generators and critical infrastructure is also limited. Prior to 7 October 2023, shortages regularly affect hospitals, sewage treatment plants, and water desalination facilities, creating severe humanitarian challenges.

3. FINANCIAL SANCTIONS

•  Banking Restrictions: Gaza’s financial sector is constrained by restrictions on international banking and financial transactions, led by the U.S., EU, and other countries. This impacts humanitarian aid and development projects, making it difficult for international organizations and businesses to operate freely in Gaza.
• Foreign Aid Limitations: International aid to Gaza is often restricted or subjected to stringent conditions to ensure it does not benefit Hamas. While aid is still provided, these restrictions can slow down the delivery of critical supplies and services.

4. HUMANITARIAN SANCTIONS

•  Medical Supplies: While humanitarian aid is technically allowed into Gaza, many medical supplies are subject to restrictions. Supplies that could potentially have dual uses, such as certain chemicals or medical equipment, are often delayed or barred, contributing to a healthcare crisis in the territory.
• Reconstruction: After conflicts, the reconstruction of homes, schools, hospitals, and public infrastructure is often hindered by the sanctions on construction materials. This has left many buildings in a state of ruin for years after they were destroyed.

5. MARITIME BLOCKADE

•  Fishing Zone Restrictions: Gaza’s fishermen are restricted to a small area along the coast, as the Israeli navy enforces a blockade that limits how far they can fish. Violations of the restricted fishing zone often result in arrests or destruction of boats. This has decimated the fishing industry, which was once a major source of livelihood for many Gazans.
• Ports and Maritime Traffic: Gaza has no functioning sea port. The blockade prevents maritime traffic to and from Gaza, cutting off another potential avenue for trade and access to supplies.

6. AERIAL AND TERRITORIAL BLOCKADE

•  Airspace: Gaza’s airspace is controlled by Israel, which prohibits the use of airports in Gaza. This restriction applies to both civilian flights and cargo, leaving the population reliant on the heavily monitored and limited land crossings for movement of goods and people.
• Territorial Control: All of Gaza’s borders, except for the southern Rafah crossing with Egypt, are controlled by Israel. Even at Rafah, strict controls and cooperation between Egypt and Israel limit movement, keeping Gaza’s population isolated from the rest of the world.

These economic, movement, energy, financial, humanitarian, maritime, and territorial restrictions sanctions severely limit Gaza’s ability to trade, rebuild, access basic services, and engage with the outside world. It has also led to widespread suffering among the civilian population. The sanctions have contributed to high levels of poverty and unemployment, limited access to essential goods and services, and a general sense of isolation and desperation among the population.

KEY COUNTRIES IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON GAZA

The sanctions on Gaza have been imposed by multiple actors, including the United States, European Union, Israel, and other countries in the international community.

• The United States has been a significant player in imposing financial sanctions on Gaza. In 2006, the U.S. Congress passed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which prohibits any U.S. financial assistance to any and all Palestinian entities until it recognises Israel’s right to exist, renounces violence, and accepts previously signed agreements.
• Similarly, the European Union (EU) has also imposed financial sanctions on Gaza. In 2006, the EU suspended its aid to the Palestinian Authority in response to Hamas’ election victory. The EU’s decision to withhold aid has had a significant impact on the economic situation in Gaza, as the PA’s budget largely relies on foreign aid.
• Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, has also imposed its own financial sanctions on the region. Israel has restricted the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, including the blockade of Gaza’s seaport and airport. These restrictions have had a severe impact on the economy and the ability of the people of Gaza to access essential goods and services.

These sanctions however have had a severe impact on the economy and the well-being of the people of Gaza, leading to a humanitarian crisis in the region.

RANGE OF LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING THE SANCTIONS ON GAZA

The sanctions on Gaza are governed by a complex web of laws, regulations, and policies at both the international and national levels. Here are some examples:

1. UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL (UNSC) RESOLUTIONS: UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) established the Counter-Terrorism Committee and required all states to take measures to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts. UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) called for an end to hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, and for the implementation of an arms embargo against Hezbollah. These and other resolutions provide a legal basis for sanctions against individuals and entities involved in terrorism.

2. European Union (EU) Regulations: The EU has implemented several regulations related to Gaza, including Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, which established a framework for targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in terrorist activities. The EU has also imposed restrictions on the import and export of arms, and has designated certain individuals and entities for asset freezes and travel bans.

3. United States (US) Laws and Regulations: The US has implemented several laws and regulations related to sanctions on Gaza, including the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. These laws provide a legal basis for sanctions against individuals and entities involved in terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

4. National Laws and Regulations: Many countries have implemented their own laws and regulations related to sanctions on Gaza. For example, the UK has implemented regulations related to the export of dual-use goods to Gaza, while Canada has implemented regulations related to the import and export of goods to and from Gaza.

The sanctions on Gaza are governed by a complex range of laws, regulations, and policies, primarily imposed by Israel and supported by Egypt and other countries. These measures regulate the movement of people and goods, restrict economic activity, and enforce a blockade that severely impacts daily life in Gaza.

Below is an overview of the legal, regulatory, and policy framework governing the sanctions on Gaza.

1. ISRAELI LAWS, MILITARY ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

 Israeli Blockade Policy (2007 – Present)

•  Imposed after Hamas took control of Gaza, Israel’s blockade is the central legal framework that restricts the movement of goods, people, and services to and from Gaza. It includes comprehensive restrictions on land, sea, and air traffic.
• Dual-Use Goods List: Israel enforces strict regulations on goods deemed “dual-use,” which could be used for military purposes, such as construction materials, certain chemicals, and electronic equipment. The Israeli Ministry of Defense regularly updates this list, although the list is widely known to be arbitrary.

Movement and Access Restrictions

•  Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT): COGAT administers the legal framework for the movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza. This includes procedures for permits, approvals for imports and exports, and humanitarian aid. Specific orders under COGAT define how goods can be transferred through crossing points like Kerem Shalom and Erez.
• Permit Regime for Gazans: Movement for residents of Gaza into Israel or the West Bank is governed by a strict permit system, with various military orders stipulating who can apply for a permit and under what conditions (e.g., medical reasons, work permits, family reunification).

Maritime and Fishing Restrictions

•  Naval Blockade: Israel’s enforcement of a naval blockade, particularly under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, restricts Gaza’s fishing zone and blocks access to maritime trade routes. The fishing zone is limited and frequently altered, impacting local livelihoods.
• Fishing Laws: Israeli naval forces enforce regulations that limit Gaza’s fishermen to a restricted zone, frequently extending or retracting the allowable area, based on security concerns.

Military Orders and Security Regulations

• Military Orders: govern the buffer zones between Gaza and Israel, where Palestinians are restricted from approaching the borders. Any violations of this zone often result in military action. Israeli security policies dictate who and what can enter Gaza, with strict controls based on security considerations.
• Entry Regulations: According to Israeli law, most Gazans are not permitted to enter Israel unless they receive a special permit, usually for medical treatment, work, or family reunification.

2. EGYPTIAN LAWS AND REGULATIONS

 Rafah Crossing Control

 Egypt’s Border Control Laws: Egypt controls the Rafah crossing, Gaza’s only non-Israeli exit point, and it often keeps this crossing closed or restricts its usage for security reasons. The Egyptian government imposes border security laws that heavily regulate who can enter and exit Gaza through Rafah. These policies are closely coordinated with Israel.

• Smuggling Tunnels and Anti-Smuggling Laws: Egypt has enacted laws targeting the tunnels used for smuggling goods between Gaza and Egypt, as these have been considered a security threat. Egyptian military operations have destroyed many tunnels, further tightening the blockade on Gaza.
•  Cooperation with Israel: Egypt’s border control and policies regarding Gaza are often coordinated with Israel, as part of bilateral security arrangements aimed at limiting Hamas’ influence and restricting the flow of arms into Gaza. Egypt’s participation is not always direct enforcement of sanctions but indirectly affects the enforcement of the blockade.

3. INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND AGREEMENTS

•  San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994): Israel justifies its naval blockade of Gaza based on the San Remo Manual, an international legal document that outlines the legality of naval blockades in times of conflict. The blockade is considered lawful under certain conditions, provided that it does not cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population, although the blockade’s humanitarian impact has been widely criticized.
• United Nations Resolutions: Various UN Resolutions, particularly from the UN Security Council and UN Human Rights Council, have called for the easing or lifting of the blockade on humanitarian grounds. However, there is no binding UN enforcement mechanism compelling Israel to comply. UN General Assembly resolutions, while reflective of international opinion, are non-binding but frequently criticize the sanctions and blockade.
• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Under International Humanitarian Law, the blockade and sanctions on Gaza have been criticized as a form of collective punishment, which is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention. International bodies and human rights organizations argue that the blockade disproportionately affects civilians, violating IHL principles.

4. UNITED STATES AND EUROPEAN UNION POLICIES

 Terrorist Designation of Hamas

• Both the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on financial transactions, aid, and any engagement that could benefit Hamas. This affects the flow of aid and economic development in Gaza, with financial sanctions limiting international NGOs and development agencies’ ability to operate freely.
• Foreign Aid Restrictions: U.S. and EU laws restrict direct financial aid to Gaza if there is a risk that it could benefit Hamas. This includes conditions that restrict international development projects and humanitarian assistance.
• Arms Export Control Act (United States): The U.S. imposes arms embargoes on Gaza under its Arms Export Control Act, prohibiting the supply of weapons or any materials that could enhance Hamas’ military capabilities. This law, along with U.S. counterterrorism regulations, shapes international arms embargoes on Gaza and limits access to materials classified as dual-use.

5. Humanitarian Aid and Development Policies

• International NGOs and Aid Regulations: Humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza must navigate a web of regulations imposed by both Israel and international actors, including complex screening mechanisms to ensure aid is not diverted to Hamas.
• UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency): The UNRWA is a key agency responsible for providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Its operations are constrained by Israeli security regulations, which limit access to materials and services. UNRWA is subject to regulations ensuring that its aid programs do not inadvertently support Hamas or its affiliates.

 Conclusion

The sanctions on Gaza are the result of a combination of Israeli military orders, blockade policies, Egyptian border control laws, and international laws governing blockades and arms embargoes. These laws aim to restrict the flow of goods, people, and money to and from Gaza, justified primarily on the basis of security concerns related to Hamas.

However, these sanctions have had a severe humanitarian impact, leading to widespread criticism from international bodies, NGOs, and human rights organizations. The legal framework governing these sanctions remains complex, with multiple layers of national and international law involved.

After nearly 17 years, the sanctions have neither prevented terrorism, supported peace and stability in the region while human rights violations continue.

 UNSC RESOLUTION 1373 (2001)?

UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) is a resolution that was adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in response to the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The resolution requires all UN member states to take a series of measures to prevent and suppress terrorism, including the freezing of assets and the denial of financial assistance to individuals and entities involved in terrorism.

While the resolution does not specifically mention Gaza, it does apply to all member states, including those that may be involved in or affected by terrorist activities in Gaza. As such, member states are required to take measures to prevent and suppress terrorism in Gaza and to cooperate with each other in these efforts.

The resolution also calls on member states to ensure that their measures to combat terrorism comply with international law, including human rights law, refugee law, and international humanitarian law. Member states are also encouraged to cooperate with each other in providing mutual legal assistance and to strengthen their cooperation with relevant international and regional organizations, such as Interpol and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

UNSC RESOLUTION 1701 (2006)?

 UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) is a resolution that was adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in the context of the 2006 Lebanon War. The resolution calls for a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, and includes provisions related to the deployment of UN peacekeepers and the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.

While UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) does not specifically mention Gaza, it is relevant to the situation in Gaza in several ways. First, the resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, which could be interpreted as applying to armed groups in other parts of the region, including Gaza. Second, the resolution calls for the prevention of arms smuggling into Lebanon, which is also relevant to efforts to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza.

Additionally, UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) reiterates the importance of the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1559 (2004), which calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias operating in Lebanon. While this resolution is specific to Lebanon, it could be interpreted as reflecting a broader international concern with the proliferation of armed groups and the smuggling of arms in the region.

Overall, UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) highlights the importance of ending hostilities and disarming armed groups in the region, including in Gaza, and supports efforts to prevent arms smuggling and promote stability and security in the region.

EU REGULATION (EC) NO 2580/2001?

EU Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is a regulation that was adopted by the European Union (EU) to combat terrorism by freezing the assets of persons, groups, and entities involved in terrorist activities.

Under this regulation, the EU may impose asset freezes and other financial restrictions on individuals and entities suspected of involvement in terrorism or related activities. The regulation also sets out procedures for listing individuals and entities, as well as for challenging and removing such listings.

While the regulation does not specifically mention Gaza, it has been used to impose sanctions on individuals and entities associated with Hamas and other Palestinian groups. For example, the EU has listed Hamas as a terrorist organization, and has imposed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals associated with Hamas.

EU Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is just one of several regulations, laws, and policies that govern the EU’s sanctions on Gaza and other regions. Other relevant regulations and policies include the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which sets out the EU’s foreign policy objectives and provides a framework for the EU’s engagement with third countries and regions.

 INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT?

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is a US federal law that was enacted in 1977 to provide the President with the authority to regulate commerce and financial transactions in response to national emergencies. The law grants the President broad powers to impose economic sanctions and other restrictions on foreign countries, entities, and individuals that pose a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

Under IEEPA, the President may declare a national emergency and use his or her executive authority to prohibit or restrict any transactions involving designated foreign countries, entities, or individuals. The law provides the President with a range of sanctions and other measures that may be used, including asset freezes, trade restrictions, travel bans, and other financial and economic sanctions.

IEEPA has been used by the US government to impose sanctions on a range of countries, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russia, among others. The law has also been used to impose sanctions on individuals and entities associated with terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and other illicit activities.

In the context of Gaza, IEEPA has been used by the US government to impose sanctions on Hamas and other Palestinian groups that are designated as terrorist organizations. These sanctions have included asset freezes, travel bans, and other financial and economic restrictions.

Overall, IEEPA is a powerful tool that the US government can use to impose sanctions and other restrictions on foreign countries, entities, and individuals in response to national emergencies and other threats to US national security and foreign policy interests.

RANGE OF EU LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING THE SANCTIONS ON GAZA

The European Union (EU) has implemented several laws, regulations, and policies related to sanctions on Gaza, which are intended to support peace and stability in the region and to prevent terrorism. Here are some examples:

 EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP): The EU’s CFSP aims to promote peace, security, and development in the region, and to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) in its efforts to govern Gaza. The CFSP provides the framework for the EU’s policies on Gaza and for the implementation of sanctions measures.

EU Council Decisions and Regulations: The EU has implemented several Council Decisions and Regulations related to Gaza, including Council Decision 2011/292/CFSP, which established sanctions measures against individuals and entities involved in terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The EU has also imposed restrictions on the import and export of arms and on financial transactions with Gaza.

European External Action Service (EEAS): The EEAS is the EU’s diplomatic service, and is responsible for implementing the EU’s policies on Gaza and for overseeing the implementation of sanctions measures. The EEAS works with member states and other international partners to coordinate efforts to support peace and stability in the region and to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

Humanitarian Exemptions: The EU has also implemented exemptions to its sanctions measures to allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. These exemptions include provisions for the delivery of food, medicine, and other essential goods, as well as for the provision of humanitarian aid and assistance.

EU COUNCIL DECISION 2011/292/CFSP?

EU Council Decision 2011/292/CFSP is a decision by the Council of the European Union that sets out measures concerning restrictive measures against certain individuals and entities in view of the situation in the Middle East, including Gaza.

This decision imposes financial and travel sanctions on individuals and entities identified as being involved in terrorist activities, including the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). The decision also includes provisions for the freezing of assets and a ban on the provision of funds and economic resources to designated individuals and entities.

The decision was adopted in April 2011 and is implemented through EU regulations that provide more specific details on the scope and application of the measures. The decision was taken in response to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and aims to support the efforts of the international community to combat terrorism and promote peace and stability in the region.

The decision also provides for regular reviews of the measures to ensure that they remain appropriate and effective. These reviews take into account developments in the situation in the Middle East, including Gaza, and the impact of the measures on the individuals and entities subject to them.

HAS THE DUAL-USE GOODS POLICY PROVEN TO BE INEFFECTIVE?

The concept of dual-use goods refers to products and technologies that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. In conflict zones like Gaza, the restriction of dual-use goods is a significant part of the sanctions and blockade policies, intended to prevent potentially dangerous items from being used for military or terrorist purposes.

Has the Dual-Use Goods Policy Failed?

Here’s an analysis of the humanitarian impact of restricting dual-use goods in Gaza and why the policy is viewed as having failed or proven to be ineffective:

Reasons It’s Considered Ineffective or Problematic:

1. HUMANITARIAN IMPACT ON CIVILIANS:

•  The restriction on dual-use goods often includes basic construction materials like concrete, steel, and even certain medical supplies, which are crucial for rebuilding homes, infrastructure, and hospitals. The severe limitation on these materials has exacerbated Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, making it difficult to repair damaged infrastructure and provide essential services.
• Water treatment plants, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure have suffered due to restrictions on materials that could be used to build military bunkers but are also critical for civilian life.

2. IMPACT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

• Gaza’s economy has been crippled by the limitations on dual-use goods. The inability to import machinery, industrial tools, and raw materials needed for manufacturing and agriculture has stunted economic growth and increased unemployment.
• The restriction on dual-use items like fertilizers (which can be used in agriculture but also for making explosives) has affected the productivity of farmers, further worsening food security in the region.

3. DIFFICULTY IN DEFINING “DUAL-USE”:

The list of dual-use goods can be overly broad and subject to arbitrary interpretation, meaning that items essential for daily civilian life or basic infrastructure can end up on the prohibited list. For example, construction materials, communication devices, or chemicals that are essential in agriculture can be classified as dual-use, even if they are primarily intended for civilian use.

The lack of transparency in how these lists are created or updated has led to significant criticism from human rights organizations and international bodies.

1. LIMITED IMPACT ON MILITARY GROUPS:

• While the policy is aimed at preventing groups like Hamas from accessing materials for weapons or military infrastructure, there are reports that these groups continue to find ways to obtain materials through smuggling tunnels, black markets, or local manufacturing. Meanwhile, the civilian population continues to suffer the brunt of the restrictions.
• The blockade on dual-use goods has not stopped rocket fire from Gaza, suggesting that it has not effectively weakened the military capabilities of groups like Hamas.

CRITICISM FROM INTERNATIONAL BODIES:

 The United Nations and various humanitarian organizations have criticized the broad application of dual-use goods restrictions, claiming they amount to collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. These organizations argue that the restrictions disproportionately harm civilians while failing to stop the activities of armed groups.

HAS IT ACHIEVED ITS SECURITY OBJECTIVES?

Civilian Suffering vs. Military Impact: The dual-use goods policy in Gaza has been widely criticized for its negative humanitarian impact on the civilian population and ineffectiveness in completely preventing military groups from accessing restricted materials. There is also growing acknowledgment, even among some security analysts, that the blanket restriction on many goods has led to unnecessary suffering for civilians.

While it has achieved some security gains by limiting access to certain materials, the broad nature of the restrictions and the lack of differentiation between civilian and military needs have raised serious concerns about its overall effectiveness. Many argue that the policy has not achieved its intended objectives and has instead contributed to the long-term suffering and economic paralysis of Gaza’s civilian population.

ROLE OF THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY IN APPLYING SANCTIONS ON GAZA

The U.S. Department of Treasury plays a significant role in imposing and enforcing economic sanctions on Gaza. The Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is responsible for administering and enforcing U.S. sanctions programs, including those targeting Gaza.

OFAC maintains a list of individuals and entities that are subject to U.S. sanctions, and it can freeze their assets and prohibit U.S. persons and companies from doing business with them. OFAC also has the authority to impose civil and criminal penalties on individuals and companies that violate U.S. sanctions laws.

In the case of Gaza, the U.S. government has imposed various sanctions programs, including those targeting Hamas, which is the ruling party in Gaza. These sanctions aim to restrict the ability of Hamas to access financial resources, and they have been used to freeze the assets of Hamas leaders and entities associated with the group.

The U.S. Department of Treasury also plays a role in implementing and enforcing sanctions exemptions or licensing regimes. Under certain circumstances, the Department of Treasury may issue licenses that authorize certain activities or transactions that would otherwise be prohibited by the sanctions. For example, humanitarian organizations seeking to provide aid to the people of Gaza may apply for a license from OFAC to engage in activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the sanctions regime.

In summary, the U.S. Department of Treasury plays a critical role in the imposition and enforcement of economic sanctions on Gaza, including the administration of OFAC and the implementation of sanctions programs and exemptions.

GLOBAL BANKS NEED TO COMPLY WITH U.S DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

 Global banks are required to comply with U.S. Department of Treasury regulations and sanctions because of the significant role of the U.S. dollar in global commerce and finance. The U.S. dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency, and many international transactions are settled in U.S. dollars. As a result, U.S. financial regulations and sanctions have a significant impact on global financial markets and the ability of banks to conduct business internationally.

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces U.S. economic sanctions programs, and it maintains a list of individuals and entities that are subject to sanctions. Under U.S. law, U.S. persons and companies are prohibited from doing business with these sanctioned individuals and entities, and non-U.S. companies that do business with them risk being sanctioned themselves.

Because so many international transactions are conducted in U.S. dollars or involve U.S. banks, global banks must comply with U.S. financial regulations and sanctions to avoid violating U.S. law and facing significant penalties. These penalties can include fines, loss of access to the U.S. financial system, and damage to a bank’s reputation.

BANKS AVOIDING TRANSACTIONS WITH GAZA

Banks may choose to avoid transactions with Gaza due to a number of factors, including:

1. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: Banks are subject to strict regulations aimed at preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism. These regulations often require banks to conduct due diligence on their customers and transactions, which can be difficult in Gaza where there are limited records and information available.

2. SECURITY CONCERNS: Gaza has been the site of conflict and violence for many years, and banks may view it as a high-risk area for conducting financial transactions. This can make it difficult for banks to obtain insurance or to find correspondent banks willing to facilitate transactions with Gaza.

3. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE: Gaza’s banking infrastructure is limited, with few banks and ATMs available to serve the population. This can make it difficult for banks to operate in Gaza and to provide financial services to the people who need them.

4. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Banks may avoid transactions with Gaza due to political considerations or pressure from governments or other stakeholders. Some banks may view transactions with Gaza as controversial or potentially damaging to their reputation.

Overall, the combination of regulatory compliance, security concerns, infrastructure limitations, and political considerations can make it difficult for banks to conduct transactions with Gaza. This can result in limited access to financial services for the people of Gaza, which can have a negative impact on their economic and social well-being.

 BODY WITHIN EU RESPONSIBLE FOR SANCTIONS ON GAZA?

 The European Union’s (EU) sanctions on Gaza are implemented by the European Council, which is the main decision-making body of the EU. The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Commission. The Council is responsible for determining the EU’s foreign policy objectives and for developing and implementing the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes the imposition of sanctions on countries, groups, and individuals.

The implementation of EU sanctions on Gaza is coordinated by the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is the EU’s diplomatic service. The EEAS is responsible for carrying out the EU’s foreign policy objectives, including implementing sanctions and other measures designed to promote peace, stability, and security in the region. The EEAS works closely with the European Council and other EU institutions to develop and implement effective policies and initiatives in support of the EU’s foreign policy objectives.

THE POSITION OF THE EEAS ON SANCTIONS ON GAZA

The European Union (EU) has implemented several sanctions measures related to the situation in Gaza. These measures are implemented by the European External Action Service (EEAS) on behalf of the EU member states.

The EU’s policy on Gaza aims to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) in its efforts to govern Gaza and to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. The EU has also expressed its support for the lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza and for the efforts to reach a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The specific sanctions measures related to Gaza include restrictions on the import and export of arms, as well as targeted measures against individuals and entities believed to be involved in terrorist activities or to be hindering the peace process. These measures include asset freezes and travel bans.

In general, the EEAS supports the EU’s sanctions measures as a means of promoting peace and stability in the region. However, the EEAS has also expressed concern about the impact of these measures on the civilian population of Gaza, and has called for increased humanitarian assistance to alleviate their suffering. The EU has also called for an end to the violence and a return to negotiations towards a two-state solution.

THE PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM ACT

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (PATA) is a U.S. law that was passed in 2006 to prohibit financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) until certain conditions were met. The conditions included a requirement for the PA to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and adhere to previous agreements with Israel. Here are some arguments that have been made in support of the PATA:

1. PREVENTING THE FLOW OF FUNDS TO TERRORIST GROUPS: Supporters of the PATA argue that it is necessary to prevent the flow of funds to terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have carried out attacks against Israeli civilians. By withholding financial assistance to the PA, the U.S. can prevent funds from being diverted to these groups and promote stability in the region.

2. HOLDING THE PA ACCOUNTABLE: Supporters of the PATA argue that it is important to hold the PA accountable for its actions and ensure that it adheres to its commitments to Israel. By conditioning financial assistance on specific requirements, the U.S. can ensure that the PA is taking steps to promote peace and stability in the region.

3. PROMOTING U.S. INTERESTS: Supporters of the PATA argue that it is in the U.S. interest to promote peace and stability in the Middle East, and that conditioning financial assistance to the PA can help achieve this goal. By promoting peace and stability, the U.S. can also help prevent the spread of terrorism and extremism in the region, which can have broader implications for U.S. national security.

It is worth noting, however, that there are also arguments against the PATA, including concerns that it could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories and hinder efforts to promote peace and stability in the region. Critics have also argued that the law is overly punitive and does not take into account the complex political and social dynamics at play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM ACT

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (PATA) is a U.S. law that was passed in 2006 to prohibit financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) until certain conditions were met. The conditions included a requirement for the PA to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and adhere to previous agreements with Israel. Here are some arguments that have been made against the PATA:

1. EXACERBATING THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: Critics of the PATA argue that by withholding financial assistance to the PA, the U.S. is exacerbating the already dire humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. The PA relies heavily on foreign aid to provide basic services to its citizens, including health care, education, and infrastructure. By cutting off this aid, the U.S. is contributing to the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

2. UNDERMINING THE PEACE PROCESS: Critics of the PATA argue that it undermines efforts to promote peace and stability in the region by creating a disincentive for the PA to engage in negotiations with Israel. By conditioning financial assistance on specific requirements, the U.S. is effectively dictating the terms of any future peace agreement and reducing the flexibility of both parties to negotiate a fair and lasting solution.

3. INEFFECTIVE AT COMBATING TERRORISM: Critics of the PATA argue that it is an ineffective tool for combating terrorism because it does not address the root causes of violence and extremism in the region. Instead, it places all of the responsibility for promoting peace and stability on the PA, without taking into account the role of other actors, such as Israel and other regional powers.

4. OVERLY PUNITIVE: Critics of the PATA argue that it is overly punitive and does not take into account the complex political and social dynamics at play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By imposing strict conditions on financial assistance, the U.S. is effectively punishing the entire Palestinian population for the actions of a few, and making it more difficult for ordinary Palestinians to make ends meet and live in dignity.

Overall, the arguments against the PATA are centered on the belief that it is a counterproductive and unjust law that contributes to the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and hinders efforts to promote peace and stability in the region.

EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPOSING FINANCIAL TRANSACTION RESTRICTIONS ON GAZA

The effectiveness of imposing financial transaction restrictions on Gaza is a matter of debate. Proponents of these measures argue that they are necessary to prevent funds from being used to support terrorist organizations and to restrict the ability of these organizations to operate and carry out attacks.

However, critics argue that these measures can have a negative impact on the broader population of Gaza, as they may restrict access to essential goods and services and hinder economic growth. Additionally, it can be difficult to enforce these measures effectively, as illicit funds can be moved through informal channels or disguised as legitimate transactions.

Furthermore, financial transaction restrictions may not address the root causes of the conflict in Gaza and may be viewed as a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive solution. In some cases, these measures may even be counterproductive, as they can fuel resentment and hostility towards the countries imposing them.

Overall, the effectiveness of imposing financial transaction restrictions on Gaza is a complex issue, and any decisions regarding the use of these measures should be carefully considered in light of their potential impacts on the broader population and the potential for unintended consequences. It is important for policymakers to balance the need for security with the need to protect the basic rights and well-being of the people of Gaza.