3 weeks ago
6
As you read this, many families in Gaza are weighing whether they should flee their current shelter and risk having to endure the harsh winter out on the streets or risk being bombed and killed where they are. There is no guarantee that they will be safe from Israel’s bombs and bullets if they choose either option.
These are dilemmas no human should ever have to endure, yet recent research by Action For Humanity found that 98 percent of the 200,000 people in the “humanitarian zones” in central Gaza have had to wrestle with them. In fact, according to our findings, more than a quarter of these people have had to move 10 or more times in the past 13 months.
Yes, you read that right – the people in these “humanitarian zones” received “evacuation orders” and had to flee to save their lives, often with just the clothes on their backs 10 or more times in just over a year.
The research, based on the testimonies of displaced Palestinians on the ground, revealed that Israel’s “evacuation orders” often give people just an hour, and sometimes even less, to pack up what remains of their lives and run for their lives. And when they agree to “evacuate”, they are often still chased by a hail of bullets as they try to find new shelter in another “humanitarian zone”.
The devastating details in the report, titled Erasure by Design, make it clear that there are no real humanitarian zones in Gaza and that the “evacuation orders” Israel issues are not aimed at getting Palestinians out of harm’s way. The use of these terms by Israel, its allies and international media serve only to whitewash what is happening before our eyes in Gaza: land grabs under the threat of extermination.
The Israeli military is not acting humanely or doing Palestinians a favour when it threatens them with death by bombing if they do not leave their homes and makeshift shelters. It is not driving exhausted, starving people constantly from one place to another under threat of death and maiming, using difficult to decipher guidance, out of humanitarian concern. It is doing so to ensure nowhere in Gaza is safe for Palestinians. It is trying to kill two birds with one stone: creating the illusion of adherence to humanitarian law while laying the groundwork for illegally expanding Israeli territory.
This is why we should stop using the language of “humanitarian zones” and “evacuation orders”.
According to our findings, a third of Israel’s “evacuation orders” were handed down in the night while families slept. About 85 percent of Palestinians we talked to who are currently sheltering in the “humanitarian zones” in Deir el-Balah and al-Mawasi said they experienced difficulty in understanding the evacuation orders they received at some point in the past year. A further 15 percent said they were unable to evacuate due to disability or caregiving responsibilities after receiving an “evacuation order”. Because Israel rarely if ever provides people with a means of transport or alternative shelter after ordering them to move, its “evacuation orders” are especially meaningless for disabled, pregnant, injured, chronically ill or elderly Palestinians and their caregivers.
The conditions for those who are able to repeatedly evacuate and move into new “humanitarian zones” are not any better either. They too live under constant threat of extermination and have limited or no access to most basic resources.
The food that can be found in these ever-shrinking humanitarian islands in the strip has almost no nutritional value and is rancid to the point of inedible. As Israel turned off the taps and poisoned most wells with its bombs, there is not sufficient water either.
Sixty-eight percent of those who took part in our research said they are struggling to access clean drinking water. They say they are going without water for as long as they can and risking illness by drinking any water they can find when they absolutely have to. For nearly 20 percent of the population, this isn’t even an option: There’s no water – clean or otherwise – for them to choke down. Getting ill from contaminated water can be a death sentence in itself in Gaza with more than 80 percent of the population having no access to healthcare even in “humanitarian zones”.
So the reality on the ground is clear: There are no “humanitarian zones” or “evacuation orders” but only threats of extermination and islands of mediaeval suffering not fit for basic survival, let alone dignified living.
Israel is treating all Palestinians as subhuman and forcing them to endure conditions fit for the Dark Ages to push them permanently off their land and claim it as its own. It is blocking aid access to North Gaza, allowing in the absolute minimum in other areas and has banned the United Nations aid agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA – the main lifeline for Palestinians – from operating in the area.
And it is doing all this while pretending to meet its humanitarian duties under international law. This is happening now. As you read this article. And the world is letting it happen.
Action For Humanity’s findings are not anecdotal. It is supported by research by many other humanitarian organisations, the UN itself and most importantly, the firsthand accounts of Palestinians enduring the genocidal actions of Israel.
The world cannot continue to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Gaza. We have endless quantitative, empirical evidence: Israel’s actions in Gaza have nothing to do with defence or humanitarian concerns. Every action by Israel in Gaza is a tool for territorial expansion, mass displacement and extermination.
This is why the world must stop using Israel’s preferred language when talking about Gaza.
There are no “humanitarian zones” or “evacuation orders” in the strip. There are land grabs, extermination and atrocities at industrial scale. There is no “humanitarian crisis” in the region either. It is time we drop all the euphemisms that help Israel shield itself from accountability and start calling what’s happening in Gaza what it is: a genocide.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
