Killing Gaza Slowly

CrossFireArabia
Analyses
August 20, 2025

By Tarek Bae

File 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

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.

Analyses

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
June 22, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.

Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.

Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.

These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.

Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.

Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.

Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!

But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.

Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!

Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!

Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Analyses

Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

CrossFireArabia
June 17, 2026

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...

Killing Gaza Slowly

CrossFireArabia

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

5 bullet points on the agreement

Changing actors

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026