Thread by @BoxLoner

THE COOKIE FILES

The recent Gazan cookie debate is a perfect example of how stupid this propaganda game can get - in this case - both on the part of @TheOmniLiberal and @OmarBaddar. A 🧵on the Gaza blockade, how it changed over time and why tf we're talking about cookies:

For any measure Israel takes against Palestinians, pro-Israel people will reflexively say it had to have been done for legitimate security reasons, whilst pro-Palestinians default to the opposite: the only purpose was to inflict suffering. Let's look into what really happened:

Israel had imposed partial restrictions on Gaza after their disengagement in 2005. In 2007, after the Hamas takeover, they imposed an indefinite blockade on the Strip. On paper, the blockade measures were intended to stop weapons and 'dual-use' items from entering. HOWEVER,

It was immediately clear that a lot of the prohibited items had no discernible military use. Some denied items included books, clothes, toys, tea, coffee, milk and most baking products. Over the next 3 years, some items e.g. pasta & toilet paper were slowly allowed in...

It is true that sugar, along with potassium nitrate, was used as propellant for Qassam rockets, but it is very unlikely that cookies were ever used for this purpose (although it is technically possible), not least of all, because raw sugar was seemingly never banned from Gaza!

Between 2007 and 2010, no list of banned items was ever made public, nor was any justification given for such seemingly arbitrary and punitive measures. In 2009, one Israeli official told Ha'aretz: "We don't want Gilad Shalit's captors to be munching Bamba right over his head."

In mid-2010, the flotilla incident threw Israel's blockade measures into the spotlight and forced them to change course. Within weeks, most of the "banned" consumer items - including cookies! - started entering the strip. So, why were cookies banned in the first place? Well...

In late-2010, Gisha (Israeli human rights org) managed to provide some insight. It turned out the Ministry of Defence had issued a "whitelist" of accepted goods. Almost anything that wasn't on this list was denied, although there was no formal "black list" shorturl.at/ejwFS

Previously, Gisha had collaborated with Gazan traders and orgs to deduce which items were allowed and which were prohibited. Interestingly, cookies aren't mentioned, but there is a caveat on 'biscuits and chocolate' which were only partially blocked i.e. never fully banned...

The cookie dough thickens. There is at least one company (Sarayo Al-Wadyya), which produces cookies and has been operating in Gaza since 1985. The blockade did seriously hurt them by denying them the right to export, but they don't seem to have stopped operating from 2007-2010

In other words, I have seen no evidence that Gazans were forced to go without cookies for 3 years. It seems like some imports were denied, whilst internal production continued. But! that doesn't explain the arbitrary measures. For that, it seems there are two answers...

One, provided by a spokesman from the Israeli foreign ministry, argued that the issue wasn't the products, but rather, the suppliers. Their whitelist included trade partners that they trusted and excluded ones they didn't, hence the randomness. They were never scared of cookies

Though this makes sense, I don't think it rules out the punitive aspect. As mentioned above, it's undeniable that some Israeli officials either wanted Gazans to suffer or just didn't care. Given how easily they were able to lift the restrictions in the face of international...

pressure, they clearly could have done something sooner, but didn't. It may not have been their explicit aim to punish the population, but the measures absolutely had that effect and no one seemed to mind until they were forced to.

In 2013, Gisha obtained a full list of restricted items from the Ministry of Defence - anything not mentioned was free to be imported. This updated list has a few contentious items, but none as trivial as anything from 2007-2010. Cookiegate was over shorturl.at/xHIJ2

This all leads me to wonder: why is Omar talking about a cookie ban which (if it was ever even fully in place) hasn't existed for nearly 15 years as if this is the quintessential blockaded item in Gaza? Is it because this is his way of avoiding any conversation about the weapons?

Why not look at the 2013 measures? There is an interesting story in there about COGAT announcing that Gazan furniture companies could export to Israel at exactly the same time those companies were collapsing because of a shortage of dual-use materials (wood, lacquer and glue)

There's a strong case that a lot of dual-use items - which are also important for civilian use - were kept behind unnecessary bureaucratic walls and that Israel hadn't shown the effort to balance their security needs with the humanitarian needs of Gazans shorturl.at/dhr39

Unfortunately, that conversation doesn't happen because, for people like Omar or Ryan Grim, the only good Israeli is an evil Israeli. Regardless of how scant the evidence, the image of cartoon villains deliberately seizing treats out of children's mouths is too good not to sell

Destiny did look silly responding to a claim about cookies by talking about sugar in rockets. It seems he started with the assumption that there had to be a security justification for any blockaded item and just dug in from there (eventually admitting the blockade was too harsh)

Omar seems to have started with the assumption that every Israeli action is driven by a sinister intent to hurt Palestinians for no reason. That's why the only blockade measure he's interested in is a highly editorialised version of one that hasn't existed for over a decade

I guess a 14 year old cookie story is more relevant than the fact that Hamas were importing and repurposing whatever they could in order to launch attacks which do absolutely nothing to help their population apart from... what? a few more dead and scared Israelis?

Some parts of Israel's blockade might well have been punitive. Others were definitely not. The fact is, any country on earth in those circumstances would do something similar and if that part can't be acknowledged, the conversation goes nowhere. Instead, we talk about cookies.

PS! apologies, I don't have premium and couldn't put every link in each part. If you want my sources and notes, my dms are open!