Netanyahu’s Gaza aid U-turn isn’t about compassion – it’s about keeping the war going

Aid truck at the Kerem Shalom crossing en route to Gaza, on 19 May 2025

Zvi Bar’el writes in Haaretz on 20 May 2025:

“We must not reach a state of hunger – not for practical reasons, and not for political ones. They simply won’t support us, and we won’t be able to complete the mission of victory,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week, explaining his dramatic reversal in allowing “minimal humanitarian aid” into Gaza.

By “practical,” Netanyahu likely meant moral – a word that can no longer be uttered in front of the board of trustees that is his cabinet. “Political” on the other hand, is a cautious euphemism for growing international, primarily American, pressure that threatens Israel’s “total victory” and its full military takeover of Gaza.

To Netanyahu, approving humanitarian aid is a minor price for continuing to kill indiscriminately. Notably, he chose to cite pressure from pro-Israel U.S. lawmakers rather than the stark warning from President Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who declared the U.S. would not allow a humanitarian disaster to unfold in Gaza.

Netanyahu likely remembers the pressure Congress put on Trump during his first term to end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen – and how it forced a pause on arms deals with Saudi Arabia before Trump vetoed the decision. After Biden halted weapons shipments to Israel, Netanyahu is determined not to place Trump in a similar bind.

If the aid decision came under what amounts to an American ultimatum, its implementation has been careless – despite ample time to prepare. Jake Wood, head of the U.S.-based aid foundation overseeing the distribution, made clear in his first CNN interview: “[We] will not be a part of anything that forcibly dislocates or displaces the Palestinian population.”

Wood acknowledged that the plan is “not perfect,” initially aimed at feeding just 1.2 million people – leaving nearly a million with no assistance. But the greater fear, both locally and in Egypt, is the possibility that aid centers will be used to forcibly relocate civilians.

On Saturday, a body representing major clans in southern Gaza warned against the “militarization of humanitarian efforts and their transformation into tools of control, surveillance, and search operations disguised as aid.” The group added that “this [American] company has no legitimate mandate and is not accepted by the public or the clans. We view its entry into Gaza as a red line.”

The body, which was established by the Palestinian Authority, was, incidentally, one of the bodies Israel had previously tried to enlist to help administer Gaza on behalf of the PA – an effort that was rejected.

This concern – shared by major local businesses, including the Al-Hilo transport company, which have refused to take part in the aid project – centers on the planned establishment of four distribution centers: three near Rafah and one along the Netzarim corridor. These locations would effectively force residents of northern Gaza to relocate south in order to access food.

“This is a move designed to concentrate two million people in a small area,” a senior Palestinian Authority official told Haaretz. “We fear it is meant to pave the way for a mass expulsion … Israel won’t need to announce evacuations – it simply lays down food bowls, like you would for stray cats, and hopes people come. From there, it’s a short path to opening the border and ‘offering’ them to cross into Egypt.”

Egypt has reinforced its military presence beyond the border fence, but it is not prepared for a scenario in which tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians surge into its territory, as they did in 2008.

Cairo has received U.S. and Gulf assurances that they will oppose any mass deportation from Gaza, voluntary or forced. Arab sources say Trump even personally promised Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that he would prevent any such move. But Egypt has no real guarantee that Israel won’t attempt to engineer what it would call “spontaneous migration.”

Another unresolved question is how the aid will be distributed. Each household will receive a 20-kilogram package intended to last several days – meaning the elderly, disabled, pregnant women and children-turned-heads-of-household will have to travel long distances every few days to receive food. If they can’t carry it, they don’t get any.

It’s also unclear how fairness will be maintained. What will prevent stronger families from taking more than their share, or from selling the food on the black market – or handing it over to Hamas?

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared on Sunday that “finally, the IDF is going after Hamas’ civilian government, not just its military infrastructure.” He said that a U.S. aid group would soon begin distributing food directly to civilians, “with not a single grain reaching Hamas.”

This is a notable shift from his previous stance – that not a single grain of food would enter Gaza. Smotrich also gave no indication of how food shortages might affect Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. That, apparently, is of no concern.

Wood says his organization plans to distribute some 300 million meals over three months – about 3.3 million per day. That raises a new concern: the security of the aid hubs. The American firm tasked with distributing aid, UG Solutions, has experience inspecting Gaza checkpoints but none in managing large civilian populations. The rules of engagement for its security contractors remain unclear. The legacy of Blackwater, whose contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians, still looms.

How will these guards respond to mortar fire – or to desperate crowds of hungry civilians? Under what circumstances would the IDF, which is tasked with securing the perimeter, intervene?

Each UG Solutions guard will reportedly earn $1,100 per day. With around 100 guards, that comes to $110,000 daily – or nearly $10 million over three months. Aid distribution itself could cost up to half a billion dollars. Neither UG nor the aid foundation has disclosed its funding sources, how much has been raised, or how long the operation will continue. Once donors realize they are funding what appears to be an extension of the Israeli occupation, their willingness to give may evaporate.

At that point, Israel may be forced to take over the funding – especially if it intends to fully occupy Gaza and assume responsibility for the well-being of two million civilians. But if that happens, food parcels won’t be enough to stop the international backlash – or the sanctions that may follow.

This article is reproduced in its entirety