Killing Gaza Slowly

By Tarek Bae  

OPINION - Slaughter dressed up as humanitarian aid: So-called Gaza Humanitarian FoundationFile Photo

“Gaza is on the verge of economic and humanitarian collapse. People live day to day, always at risk from hunger and disease,” notes a UN report. Yet these words were written not in 2025, but by the Independent UN Commission of Inquiry on Gaza in 2019.

Israel has enforced a blockade on the Gaza Strip since 2007. No one and nothing enters or leaves without Israeli permission, including at the crossing to Egypt. Every import and every exit requires an application to Israeli authorities. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called Gaza the world’s largest open-air prison. Between 2017 and 2021, Israel blocked materials needed to maintain the water system. In 2017, the UN stated that 97% of Gaza’s water was undrinkable. Oxfam concluded the same year that Gaza was the most water-scarce place on earth.

From 2023 onward, Gaza became the target of genocide. From the first days, the blockade on essentials was radically expanded. On Oct. 8, 2023, then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced there would be “no electricity, no food, no fuel,” because Israel was fighting “human animals.” The total blockade, combined with unprecedented bombardment, turned Gaza into the greatest humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.

During this genocide, international agencies, especially the UN, struggled to keep civilians alive. More than 400 distribution points tried to provide the bare minimum. Political pressure was needed again and again. There were 11 UN resolutions in all, 4 by the Security Council, 5 by the General Assembly and 2 by the Human Rights Council, calling on Israel to enable sufficient humanitarian aid. Israel dismantled every channel through which aid could be delivered. More than 900 humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza since the genocide began. Never before in any war has the toll on aid workers been so high.

Netanyahu’s starvation strategy

By March 2025, the total blockade hardened into an open starvation strategy. “We have decided to stop all deliveries into Gaza, including food, water and aid,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on March 2, 2025.

Barely two months later, in May, Israel and the US rolled out the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This, Israeli officials said, would be the new and only route for humanitarian aid. Rumors of a new distribution mechanism had circulated since February, a design Israel was planning with US partners. Coverage of those plans was overshadowed by Donald Trump’s “Gaza Plan.” In a joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington on Feb. 4, 2025, Trump publicly declared the intention of the US to “take over” the Gaza Strip. That the GHF sits inside this vision follows from statements by GHF officials. In June 2025, Executive Chairman Johnnie Moore Jr. said: “The United States will take full responsibility for the future of Gaza.”

It is not a purely American venture. Logistical coordination at the GHF is led by Israeli Brigadier General Yaakov Baruch. Despite its name, the GHF is not a foundation; it is a political-military organization. Alongside the Israeli military, mercenaries from the US are involved. According to The Times of Israel, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of Trump, is the chief architect of the idea. The US initially put €30 million ($35 million) into the project, with further pledges. In July 2025, Trump complained that no one had expressed gratitude. But what exactly should anyone thank the GHF, Israel, or the US for? GHF spokesperson Shahar Segal offers an answer. “It is frustrating to see people constantly blaming Israel, when in reality it is Israeli logistics that ensure humanitarian food reaches those who desperately need it. The GHF model is saving lives.”

Is that true? No. Among the familiar set of claims used to relativize the genocide is the allegation that allowing international aid only helps Hamas. Again and again, the line is that aid never reaches civilians. Another claim is that Hamas steals humanitarian supplies. The conclusion is clear: this is propaganda. Videos of armed guards on trucks or of lootings by armed gangs have been presented by Israel, in a misleading fashion, as Hamas seizures.

A review by the United States Agency for International Development examined 156 incidents of loss or theft of US-funded aid between October 2023 and May 2025. It found not a single piece of evidence that any of those incidents could be attributed to Hamas. In 44 cases, there were links to Israeli military activity. Reuters reported that Israeli military offices had produced no evidence of systematic theft by Hamas. The New York Times cited sources inside Israel’s government who acknowledged they had none either.

From 400 aid points to 4 militarized sites

Is the GHF more effective at distributing aid? Not at all. Instead of the 400 international distribution points that once existed, Israel’s blockade and the imposition of the GHF have left only 4 highly militarized sites, with just 1 in the densely populated north. The UN calculates that Gaza’s basic humanitarian need amounts to around 600 truckloads a day. By its own account, the GHF moves at most 26 truckloads daily, roughly 4% of what is required. In a territory facing acute hunger, such an amount is not small—it is nothing.

According to the IPC Famine Review Committee, the whole of Gaza has been in IPC Phase 5 since July, the highest alert, a catastrophic food emergency. People in this phase are at immediate risk of starvation. More than 700,000 people have gone days without any food. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, was blunt: “Israel has made clear its intention to starve everyone in Gaza.”

What Israel and the US call a distribution mechanism and a foundation is, in the words of Doctors Without Borders, “slaughter dressed up as humanitarian aid.” Starving civilians are forced to walk up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) under the burning sun to reach GHF sites. Arrival does not guarantee help. More than 1,881 starving civilians have been killed at or near GHF distribution sites. The Israeli army regularly fires indiscriminately into the waiting crowd.

Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, calls the GHF “an alibi for the systematic starvation of Gaza.” For him, the logic is clear. Israel destroyed the humanitarian infrastructure in order to replace it with a facade organization under military control. OCHA spokesperson Jens Laerke sees in the GHF a “distraction.”

What does it distract from? Netanyahu has said the plan out loud. On May 11, according to the Israeli outlet Maariv, he tied aid to permanent expulsion. Those who receive aid at a given place should never see that place again and must evacuate. “The residents of Gaza whom we are expelling will not return. They will no longer be there. We will control the place. There is no other war aim. All other goals are mere eyewash.”

By the Israeli government’s own account, the GHF is a means to drive Palestinians out of Gaza or to let them die, by deliberately starving them, denying supplies, and cutting off humanitarian aid.

*The author is the editor-in-chief of the German journal itidal.de. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Analysis: Why Did Hezbollah Enter This War?

Hezbollah’s entry into the war reflects strategic calculations shaped by Israeli escalation, regional alliances, and Lebanon’s fractured politics.

Key Takeaways

  • Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire in Lebanon through airstrikes, raids, and surveillance operations.
  • Hezbollah’s response has so far remained limited compared to Israel’s sustained military actions.
  • Lebanon’s political leadership has failed to present a unified response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory.
  • Hezbollah’s intervention reflects strategic concerns about Israel’s long-term plans in Lebanon and the broader war against Iran.
  • The coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions suggests the Axis of Resistance continues to operate collectively.

A Regional War Expands

Hezbollah’s decision to enter the ongoing regional confrontation did not occur in isolation. The latest escalation began when the United States and Israel launched major strikes against Iran, triggering waves of Iranian retaliation across the region.

The conflict quickly expanded beyond Iran itself. Iranian retaliatory strikes targeted US military assets and positions across the Gulf. The war rapidly assumed the character of a wider regional confrontation involving multiple actors aligned along competing geopolitical blocs.

Within this context, attention turned to Lebanon, where Hezbollah—one of the most powerful non-state actors in the Middle East—began limited military operations against Israeli positions along the border.

The central question quickly emerged: Why did Hezbollah enter the war?

The answer lies in a combination of military, political, and strategic considerations that go far beyond the immediate battlefield.

Did Hezbollah Violate the Ceasefire?

A central claim advanced by Israel and some Western governments – and even anti-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon itself – is that Hezbollah’s actions represent a violation of the ceasefire arrangements that followed previous rounds of conflict along the Lebanese border.

However, the reality on the ground presents a far more complex picture.

For months, Israel has carried out continuous violations of Lebanese sovereignty through airstrikes, drone surveillance, artillery fire, and cross-border incursions.

According to Lebanese government figures and reports by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Israel has committed thousands of violations of Lebanese airspace and territory since the ceasefire arrangements took effect.

Lebanese officials have repeatedly documented Israeli overflights, drone operations, and missile strikes inside the country. UNIFIL has also confirmed frequent violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft.

These actions have not been merely symbolic. Israeli strikes have caused civilian casualties and extensive destruction of homes and infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

Villages near the border have experienced repeated bombardments, forcing families to flee and damaging agricultural land and civilian property.

At the same time, Israeli officials have openly signaled that they have no intention of withdrawing fully from Lebanese territory or halting military operations.

Several Israeli leaders have stated publicly that Israel intends to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah and potentially establish a longer-term security presence along the border.

In this context, Hezbollah’s response—limited strikes against Israeli military positions—cannot easily be framed as the violation of a functioning ceasefire.

Rather, Hezbollah and its allies argue that no real ceasefire existed, given the scale and persistence of Israeli violations.

Did Hezbollah Violate Lebanese Consensus?

Another argument advanced by critics inside Lebanon is that Hezbollah’s intervention undermines national consensus and drags the country into a war it cannot afford.

Lebanon’s government, which maintains close ties with Western governments and the United States, has repeatedly blamed Hezbollah for escalating tensions.

However, the government has struggled to provide a convincing explanation of how it interprets Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanese territory.

While condemning Hezbollah’s actions, Lebanese authorities have largely failed to respond militarily—or even diplomatically in an effective way—to Israeli strikes.

The Lebanese state has not fired a single bullet at Israeli forces despite repeated attacks inside its territory. This has deepened the political divide within Lebanese society.

Lebanon has long been fractured along sectarian, ideological, and geopolitical lines. Some factions align closely with Western and Gulf states, while others view themselves as part of the Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah in Yemen, Palestinian resistance factons and several Iraqi factions.

Within this divided political landscape, there has never been a unified national consensus regarding confrontation with Israel.

For many Lebanese—particularly in communities that have historically borne the brunt of Israeli attacks—Hezbollah’s military posture is viewed as a form of deterrence rather than escalation.

So Why Did Hezbollah Enter the War?

Hezbollah’s decision to join the conflict appears to reflect a broader strategic calculation.

From Hezbollah’s perspective, the Israeli war was likely to expand regardless of its immediate actions.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to reshape the regional balance of power and weaken Iran and its allies.

For Hezbollah, the prospect of Iran being significantly weakened carries profound implications.

If Iran’s position in the region were severely damaged, Hezbollah could find itself facing Israel largely alone—while simultaneously confronting pressure from the United States, Western governments, and regional Arab powers aligned with Washington.

In such a scenario, Hezbollah could be isolated militarily and politically.

Entering the war now, while Iran remains actively engaged and regional allies are mobilized, allows Hezbollah to operate within a broader coalition rather than as an isolated actor.

It also ensures that Hezbollah retains influence over the eventual diplomatic outcome of the conflict.

Wars in the Middle East often conclude not with decisive military victories but through negotiated exits once the architects of war decide to pursue a political strategy.

By participating in the conflict, Hezbollah guarantees that it will have a seat at the negotiating table when such an exit strategy eventually emerges.

Does This Mean the Axis of Resistance Has Been Reborn?

Some analysts have framed the current coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions as the “rebirth” of the Axis of Resistance.

But the reality may be more nuanced.

The Axis of Resistance was never destroyed. Instead, each actor within it has often had to adapt to its own domestic political realities.

Hezbollah operates within Lebanon’s complex sectarian political system. Iraqi factions must navigate Baghdad’s fragile state institutions. Ansarallah governs large parts of Yemen under conditions of war and blockade. Hamas remains focused on defeating the Israeli-US scheme aimed at disarming resistance and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Gaza,

These differing political contexts often limit how openly each actor can coordinate with the others. Yet recent developments suggest that the axis is functioning in a coordinated manner.

Iranian strikes across the region, Ansarallah’s operations in the Red Sea, and Hezbollah’s engagement along the Lebanese border indicate a level of strategic alignment.

The current conflict has therefore revealed not the rebirth of the axis but its continued operational existence.

Our Strategic Analysis

Hezbollah’s intervention reflects a calculated strategic move rather than an impulsive escalation.

Israel’s continued military pressure on Lebanon, combined with the wider war against Iran, created conditions in which Hezbollah perceived long-term risks in remaining passive.

By entering the conflict in a limited but coordinated manner, Hezbollah seeks to shape the strategic environment before the war reaches a stage where diplomatic negotiations become inevitable.

In doing so, Hezbollah is signaling that the future of Lebanon—and the broader regional balance of power—cannot be determined without its participation.

Palestine Chronicle

Continue reading
Israel’s Next AI Solution to Gaza

The Israeli and US plans aiming to transform the Gaza Strip into an economy lacking financial sovereignty are extremely concerning. The plans suggest abolishing cash currency and enforcing a transition to a digital economy managed by external entities aligned with Israel.

This would change access to money and basic transactions from a fundamental right into a revocable privilege, making food, medicine, and shelter dependent on security decisions and military assessments. It reflects a coercive restructuring of daily life aimed at pushing the population toward poverty and displacement, managed through technology.

After over two years of financial blockade, Liran Tancman, an Israeli businessman and former officer in Israeli Intelligence Unit 8200, who has been involved with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), said at an event in Washington that rebuilding Gaza depends on restoring its digital and economic connectivity. He outlined a vision for creating a “secure digital backbone” to support electronic payments, education, and financial services, alongside an “Amazon-like logistics system”. This approach aims to transition the economy from a rights-based framework to one focused on operational and security control.

Introducing digital wallets as a technical solution for reconstruction functions as a cover for a new phase of engineering control over the population and increasing economic reliance on Israel. This strategy transforms financial technology into a programmable instrument for collective regulation, enabling real-time monitoring, arbitrary restrictions, and selective freezing of funds amidst ongoing blockade and occupation, all while lacking Palestinian sovereignty over data, financial systems, operational conditions, or options to object.

Subjecting the right of access to financial resources to a security authority, whether directly or indirectly, undermines the core of economic and social rights. It damages the right to food and human dignity and breaches international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective punishment and criminalising the population. Additionally, it violates the prohibition on the use of starvation as a warfare tactic and conflicts with the fundamental obligation to protect civilians and guarantee their access to essential survival needs.

Any digital infrastructure established under occupation or international tutelage without full Palestinian sovereignty over data and financial systems risks becoming a tool for collective control and subjugation. Israel has frequently enforced arbitrary movement restrictions based on vague and non-appealable security reasons, raising fears that similar restrictions could extend to access to financial resources.

Euro-Med Monitor warns that creating a digital financial system under Israeli control could serve as a comprehensive coercion tool against Palestinians, especially journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. Digital wallets might be frozen based on a single decision, or individuals could be assigned broad security labels, resulting in the loss of access to funds without proper oversight, due process, or remedies. This situation risks making essential rights to food, medicine, and shelter dependent on unchecked security judgments.

Israel’s extensive security classification system for Palestinians, which designates hundreds of thousands as having political or national affiliations, could potentially be used as a financial weapon under such a framework to block access to their wallets and enable coercion. This situation is similar to the current restrictions on travel for medical care or movement freedom, often justified by “lack of security approval,” despite the lack of clear standards or real chances to contest these decisions.

The threat goes beyond simply denying funds; it involves turning the economy into a network of conditions and restrictions. Basic services would become dependent on political and security compliance, while aid, salaries, and trade could be used as tools for classification. People would be tracked through digital records that decide their access to essential needs. This method risks reinforcing arbitrary discrimination and could lead to collective punishment that affects both individuals and groups.

Restricting the development of advanced internet services to areas like the so-called “New Rafah,” combined with partial reconstruction efforts, raises concerns about using technology as a pressure tool to alter demographics and enforce coercive changes. Digital services risk becoming a privilege tied to geographic location rather than a universal public right, thereby weakening the principles of non-discrimination and equitable access to services.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises Tancman’s crucial role in the GHF, which is associated with contentious aid distribution methods amid the Gaza genocide. Field data indicate that the foundation’s policies helped engineer starvation in the enclave, resulting in about 1,200 civilian deaths and injuries to thousands more during food access efforts. He is also among those who suggested tying aid distribution to “biometric” checks, effectively turning relief efforts into mechanisms for data gathering, coercion, and security control.

Any digital or economic initiative that overlooks the occupation’s realities and provides the occupying power with more control tools over the population’s lives does not contribute to rebuilding Gaza or facilitating recovery. Instead, it solidifies an illegal system of domination and risks turning technology into a means to prolong violations and maintain the blockade in a “smart” manner. In this form, the blockade becomes programmable, with punishment that is swift and direct, serving as leverage to drive the population into poverty, displacement, and uprooting by limiting livelihoods and linking survival to security policies.

The reconstruction efforts and any transitional phase must be grounded in respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law, guarantee full Palestinian sovereignty over resources, systems, and data, and ensure the separation of humanitarian arrangements from security and intelligence functions.

Euro-Med Monitor underscores the prohibition on linking any financial services, humanitarian aid, or access to basic necessities to “biometric” verification, security classifications, or political conditions. It advocates adopting the principle of data minimisation and preventing the transfer or sharing of data with any third party, particularly security bodies or companies contracted with them.

Since October 2023, Israel has barred all cash entries into Gaza and enforced a strict financial blockade, resulting in the closure of all bank branches during the genocide. Although some branches later reopened partially, they were still not allowed to bring in cash, thereby preventing cash withdrawals.

Euro-Med Monitor urges rejection of any financial or digital arrangements imposed on Palestinians under occupation or made in their name without real Palestinian sovereignty, independent civil representation, and enforceable oversight and appeal processes. The idea of “consent” in the context of occupation lacks legitimacy as long as Palestinians do not control money and data.

Any system that does not guarantee full Palestinian sovereignty over data, infrastructure, standards, and governance, and that grants the occupying power or its agents the ability to access, disable, or freeze operations, remains an unlawful instrument of control, regardless of any humanitarian or developmental framing.

All digital systems should undergo regular independent audits focusing on privacy, cybersecurity, and human rights impacts, with the results openly published. Full transparency is required regarding funders, owners, operators, contractors, and contractual conditions. Euro-Med Monitor calls for safe non-digital alternatives and opposes making survival or access to services dependent on digital wallets, which could exclude vulnerable groups or those without connectivity or technical means.

The establishment of independent and effective appeal mechanisms with well-defined jurisdiction, competent judicial authority, and quick decision-making regarding asset freezes or transaction restrictions is crucial. These mechanisms should ensure transparency in operational standards and objection procedures and require that decisions be reasoned.

Euro-Med Monitor urges the establishment of an independent Palestinian civil authority to govern the financial and technological systems without interference from the occupation. It emphasises that genuine economic progress depends on lifting unlawful restrictions on crossings, cash flow, goods, and communications, rather than replacing a physical blockade with a “smart” digital one that increases dependency and perpetuates violations.

Continue reading

You Missed

Iranian govt spokesman: 30% of victims are children; 165 of them killed among 1300 civilians who died by US/Israeli bombing

Iranian govt spokesman: 30% of victims are children; 165 of them killed among 1300 civilians who died by US/Israeli bombing

White House: ‘We destroyed more than 30 Iranian ships and are moving to destroying the navy completely’

White House: ‘We destroyed more than 30 Iranian ships and are moving to destroying the navy completely’

White House: ‘We Have 4 to 6 Weeks to End The Military Operations in Iran’

White House: ‘We Have 4 to 6 Weeks to End The Military Operations in Iran’

IRGC: Iran Has Not Closed The Hormuz Strait Except to Ships Linked to Israel/USA

IRGC: Iran Has Not Closed The Hormuz Strait Except to Ships Linked to Israel/USA

Hezbollah Launches 18 Rockets on Israel

Hezbollah Launches 18 Rockets on Israel

Oil Prices Soar Past $90 Per Barrel

Oil Prices Soar Past $90 Per Barrel