The EMHRN mission to the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel was commissioned to evaluate the situation in the Gaza Strip post the Israeli “disengagement”. The mission team had extensive discussions with representatives from political parties, the Palestinian Authority, the civil society (both Palestinian and Israeli NGOs) and the business community. The mission period was between 3 and 10 October 2005.
The Israeli military and civil pullout from the Gaza Strip after 38 years has improved the ability of Gazans to move freely inside the Gaza Strip which was impossible to a large extent over the past years. The pullout, the regained ability to access all parts of the Gaza Strip, as well as the regained housing and farming areas have been perceived as positive elements in the Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Nevertheless, the situation in the Gaza Strip is labelled by a continued extensive Israeli control over the population and their daily life. Israel is able to control access to and passage to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel exercises complete military control over the Strip and is able to stage attacks at any time and on all locations inside the strip, and Israel can assume physical control of any part of the Strip at any time.
Israel exercises complete control over all traffic between the Gaza Strip and the occupied and annexed territories in the West Bank and Jerusalem. So far any passage between the strip and the West bank and Jerusalem has been blocked by Israel.
Furthermore, Israel exercises complete control over the import and export of all kinds of goods and services to and from the strip. Israel exercises control over and blocks all air traffic to and from the Gaza Strip and exercises control over the access to the sea including fishery. While the access from the sea is blocked by Israel permanently, Palestinian fishery is blocked by Israel from time to time or limited to a tiny area close to the shore.
In conclusion from the observed situation in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli policy this mission emphasises the unilateral character of the “disengagement”. Although the accomplishment of the “disengagement” seems to be aimed at meeting the long standing Palestinian and international demand to end the occupation of the Gaza Strip, it should not be regarded as a part of a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In fact it should be regarded as a tactical redeployment of power to facilitate the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The mission team still regards Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip. As shown in the report, the elements activating the application of the law of occupation remain and therefore occupation remains. As such Israel has to apply policies in coherence with international law including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949.