The tragedy in Gaza gets ever worse, with images of emaciated children gripping the world and turning some of Israel’s international sympathizers into advocates of a Palestinian state.
US President Donald Trump has said the US would set up “food centers” for the 2 million people of the Gaza Strip. However, the question is how the US, with all of its resources and logistical muscle, could get aid quickly into the war zone.
The first thing Washington could do, in conjunction with its European and Middle Eastern allies, is encourage Israel open more roads into the Strip for transporting aid.
The Israelis reasonably said that the terrorists of Hamas still have the ability to take control of the food, and that bringing in aid is a dangerous mission. However, the laws of war are very clear: Any occupying force assumes full responsibility for civilians, including provision of food, potable water, medical care, electricity and other basic needs. The Israeli military is well aware of those obligations.
I recall that when the NATO deployed to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we were keenly aware of those requirements. NATO forces, in addition to providing basic security, became deeply involved in providing nutrition, digging wells, building roads, opening health clinics and even providing basic education. It was doubly difficult, because Afghanistan is a landlocked country hundreds of miles from the sea: By far the most efficient way to move large amounts of cargo is across the oceans.
The Israelis are now conducting airdrops of food (something the US did as well earlier in the conflict), but this is the least efficient path to getting supplies into the hands of the population. Not only are the amounts of aid relatively tiny — an airdrop pallet has about a tenth of the supplies of a single truckload — but their trajectories are also hard to control.
With the Israelis reluctant to really open the land crossings, and airdrops inefficient, let us see how the needs of this starving population could be met from the Mediterranean.
The first step might be to return to an idea that flopped earlier in the conflict: a floating pier, or US Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore system (JLOTS). The US Pentagon tried this from May to July last year, and despite the US Army’s and Navy’s best efforts, the project was ultimately a failure. It was plagued by damage from rough seas and weather, and even when aid began to flow, security conditions ashore made delivery inefficient and incomplete. (It was not a total disaster: About 20 million pounds of aid came across the pier before it was dismantled.)
However, militaries always learn from setbacks, and learning the lessons of what went wrong showed two potential options for moving humanitarian cargo from the water.
First, we can try a different version of the JLOTS pier, perhaps by constructing it in a more protected location, such as the Israeli Port of Ashdod, just a dozen miles from the Gaza border. (The Israelis have promised to construct a dedicated pier for such cargo there, but have yet to begin work.) If successfully built and supported by the Israelis, significant aid could be brought into the northern reaches of the Strip that are controlled by Israel, thus avoiding interference from Hamas.
A second approach would be a humanitarian flotilla off the coast of Gaza itself, using a combination of embarked helicopters and landing craft. It would be centered around a US large-deck amphibious ship of the USS America class. These massive craft are almost 274.43cm long and displace 45,000 tonnes, larger than the aircraft carriers of most allied nations; one, the USS Wasp, patrolled the Mediterranean recently.
The America-class ships typically operate a dozen Osprey MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, four King Stallion CH-53K heavy transport helicopters, and a dozen Venom and Seahawk utility helicopters. The ships could even embark fighter aircraft that land vertically, but the deck load could be mixed and matched to make it optimal for humanitarian work.
This ship would be supported by a handful of transport and logistical ships from European allies, notably Spain, France and Italy — Mediterranean nations with considerable coastlines and capable navies. France’s three Mistral-class ships could operate 12 heavy-lift helicopters and 20 lighter-lift models. The Italian Navy’s new landing ship dock, the ITS Trieste, which is nearly 40,000 tonnes, has immense utility. Spain’s Juan Carlos I is a 26,000-tonne warship with lots of operational experience. A truly integrated international humanitarian flotilla would be ideal for political and diplomatic reasons as well.
Cargo could be loaded in Cyprus, Greece or Turkey and moved to the waiting flotilla. It could then be transferred through “underway replenishment” (when two ships come alongside each other and rapidly move pallets by crane) or airlifted into controlled distribution points in Gaza or Ashdod. Food itself (and water, medical supplies, generators, etc.) could be supplied by the participating nations, non-governmental organizations or international entities under the umbrella of the UN.
Obviously, all of this is contingent on Israel creating a more secure environment at delivery points. The Israelis should approach some Arab partners such as Jordan and Egypt for soldiers to help man the checkpoints. Alternatively, the UN could bring peacekeeping forces from outside the region.
Israel has the right to protect itself from Hamas, but along with that goes a responsibility for the well-being of Gaza’s citizens. Look to the sea for additional means of doing so — and the more international the effort, the better.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS