|
Ayan Datta
29 May 2025 |
In the news
On 28 May, thousands of Palestinians rushed into a US and Israeli-backed aid distribution centre in Rafah, resulting in a stampede that killed four people. Palestinian sources claimed that the fatalities were caused by warning shots fired by Israeli troops present at the scene. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which was providing the aid, distributed around 8000 food boxes but had to scale down its operations because of the overcrowding.
Previously, on 27 May, the then GHF chief, Jake Wood, resigned from the organisation. Wood hinted that the agency’s composition of “loose constellation of...a wide range of stakeholders” hampered its ability to uphold “humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.” On the same day, Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, criticised Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza, claiming that the latter’s actions were unjustifiable.
On 22 May, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the IDF had established control over 50 per cent of Gaza’s landmass as part of its Operation Gideon’s Chariots, and was planning to “separate civilians from Hamas.” Previously, Israeli airstrikes stalled the entry of 65 aid trucks into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom Crossing.
Issues at large
First, Israel’s new offensive and stalled hostage negotiations. The ongoing IDF operations are part of Israel’s fresh Gaza offensive. Beginning on 16 May, the operation aims to destroy Hamas’ remaining military and political capabilities and secure Israeli control over the entire Gaza Strip. The operation unfolded alongside failed hostage negotiations led by Egypt and Qatar. Around the same time, Netanyahu publicly shifted his war priorities, stating that defeating Hamas and reoccupying the enclave was now his “supreme objective,” rather than rescuing the remaining hostages.
Second, the UN-Israel disagreements over aid suppliers. Ever since the IDF established control over Southern Gaza and the enclave boundary areas with Israel, Netanyahu has used the GHF to provide aid to the Palestinians, instead of UN agencies. The decision has faced staunch criticism from the UN agencies, especially the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), on several grounds. First, unlike the UN agencies, which work through established local channels, GFA is untrained and untested in Gaza. Second, the GHF is headed by former IDF officers, reservists, Israeli businessmen, and former CIA officers. These political links compromise its impartiality, making it complicit in Israel’s tactics of delays, diversion, and discrimination in aid provision. In contrast, the UN-affiliated staff function as an international civilian presence in Gaza, providing impartial coverage of Israel’s actions. Third, unlike UN agencies that operate across the Strip, GHF’s reach is limited to southern Gaza. This arrangement forces Palestinians to travel from northern Gaza to the Israel-occupied south, contravening the norm of providing aid at the recipient’s location and enabling Israel’s unstated policy of displacing Gazans. However, for Netanyahu, UN agencies harbour an anti-Israel bias and are prone to infiltration and diversion of aid by Hamas, which necessitates a US-Israeli presence.
Third, Western partners’ criticism of Israel. Merz’s remarks followed growing criticism against Israel’s latest operations from its major Western partners. Previously, the leaders of France, Canada, and the UK penned a letter to the Israeli government, urging it to halt its latest operations. The trio warned of “concrete actions,” including recognising the State of Palestine, if Netanyahu did not comply. Merz’s remarks appeared to depart from the established post-World War II German foreign policy consensus, which treated Israel’s security, as defined by Israel itself, as Germany’s national interest. With public opinion in Europe turning increasingly anti-Israel, Merz and other European leaders’ statements broke the norm against criticising Israel prevailing in western capitals since 7 October 2023.
In perspective
First, Israel’s re-occupation of Gaza is likely to deepen the Israeli-Palestinian divide. As political history shows, previous periods of Israeli occupation did not root out Palestinian nationalism. Second, Netanyahu does not view the debate over aid suppliers as a matter of expertise or training, but of undermining Hamas’ political capabilities by consolidating Israeli presence in Gaza. While Israel’s occupation is problematic, there is a grain of truth in Netanyahu’s argument about Hamas infiltration. The problem is particularly severe in Gaza, since Hamas is deeply embedded in Palestinian society. Third, recent Western statements against Israel do not reflect a change in their Israel policy. Most Euro-American criticisms have only called for a slowdown in the pace and intensity of IDF operations, rather than any fundamental shift in the re-occupation policy. Moreover, unless Western partners take any tangible measures against Israel, like sanctions or cessation of weapons supplies, their carte blanche to Netanyahu effectively continues.
About the author
Ayan Datta is a postgraduate student at the University of Hyderabad.
