Connect with us

Middle East

UN and aid groups reject US-backed Gaza aid model

Published

on

Established with the support of the US and Israel, the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation is poised to take over aid distribution, yet it faces severe criticism due to its opaque structure, reliance on foreign mercenaries, and the location of its distribution points.

According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), dozens of foreign mercenaries have been brought into Israel as part of a controversial US-backed humanitarian aid plan. The plan aims to transfer control of humanitarian aid in Gaza from the United Nations (UN) to the largely unknown Switzerland-based Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation (GHF).

After a blockade lasting approximately three months, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged was driving the populace to starvation, Israel this week permitted over 90 aid trucks to enter Gaza following international outcry. However, Israel describes these aid deliveries as merely a temporary “bridge solution” and aims for the new system, advocated by the US administration, to be operational by the end of the month.

Can the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation replace UN agencies?

The report indicates that the new system envisages aid being distributed by the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation from centers protected by the Israeli army and private security companies. The UN and other organizations wishing to deliver aid would reportedly be compelled to use these centers. This arrangement would necessitate civilians, particularly those seeking access to centers concentrated in southern Gaza, traveling long distances.

Since the plan’s introduction in May, numerous technical and ethical issues regarding its implementation have emerged. Sources close to the project, for which former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also alleged to be an unofficial advisor, state that the current system is far from meeting the needs of over two million Palestinians.

The UN has long been the primary aid provider in Gaza. The organization has sharply criticized the GHF model, calling it a “cover to disguise forced displacement.”

It has also been revealed that some “board members” named in the foundation’s documents have not accepted these positions.

Structure is not transparent, funding is uncertain

The GHF announced plans to distribute 300 million meals within the first 90 days. The cost of this distribution—including security expenses for foreign mercenaries—is reported to be $1.30 per meal. However, how the foundation is financed remains unknown.

According to three sources close to the matter, no international donors had contributed to the foundation as of last week. Another source claimed there was a pledge of at least $100 million in donations but did not disclose the names of these individuals.

Tony Blair intervened

From the outset of the project, prominent figures in the aid world were sought for inclusion in the plan. According to three sources, Tony Blair met with former UN World Food Program (WFP) Director David Beasley, asking him to evaluate the plan. Beasley’s name appears in GHF documents as a potential board member, but he has not responded to requests for comment.

Similarly, draft documents showed Nate Mook, former CEO of World Central Kitchen, as an “indispensable board member.” However, Mook told the FT, “I am not on the board.”

Foreign mercenaries draw attention

The GHF’s complex and opaque structure is noteworthy. The foundation was reportedly established in Switzerland in February 2025 by an Armenian citizen, and it has a second, undisclosed branch in the US. Details regarding the foundation’s financial structure are largely kept secret.

Israeli media recently shared images of uniformed foreign private security personnel arriving in the country. These individuals are reportedly assigned to duty at aid convoys and distribution centers.

Two US security companies involved in the project—Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions—operated a small-scale checkpoint system in Gaza during a brief ceasefire. Both firms did not respond to requests for comment.

Jake Wood, director of the GHF and a former US marine, stated that despite the project’s shortcomings, it was the only model approved by Israel. Wood declared, “We are committed to delivering aid humanely, without militarizing it. Distribution will be managed entirely by civilian teams.”

No support for GHF from UN and aid organizations

The UN and other international humanitarian aid organizations have so far not supported the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation model. The concentration of aid centers primarily in southern Gaza raises concerns that Palestinians will be forced to travel to areas near the Egyptian border.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated yesterday that the ultimate goal of the military operation in Gaza was to completely displace the people of Gaza from the region.

Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian aid chief, also opposed this plan, stating that the system “ties aid to political and military objectives.” Fletcher remarked, “Hunger is now being used as a bargaining chip.”

Proposed changes to the model are on the agenda

The GHF announced that it plans to make some adjustments in response to international reactions. The foundation stated in a letter to the Israeli government that it had requested the establishment of aid distribution centers in northern Gaza as well and that the personal data of aid recipients would not be shared. It also promised to facilitate the passage of non-food medical and household supplies. However, it remains unclear whether Israel will accept these demands.

The plan has received full support from the US administration despite uncertainties regarding how private security companies will manage large crowds and potential Hamas attacks in Gaza. Each distribution center is planned to serve approximately 300,000 people.

A US State Department spokesperson said, “President Trump called for creative solutions to deliver life-saving aid to the people of Gaza while ensuring peace, protecting Israel, and excluding Hamas.” He added, “Thanks to his visionary leadership, we are on the verge of a major gain.”

Middle East

US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization

Published

on

US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.

At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.

Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.

“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”

Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:

“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”

Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.

Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.

Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.

“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.

The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.

The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.

Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.

“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.

Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.

However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.

Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.

“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say

Published

on

The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.

Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.

As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.

Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.

That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.

Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.

While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.

Washington fears regional spillover

The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.

The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.

For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.

The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.

According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.

Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.

“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.

Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.

Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.

The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing

Published

on

As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.

Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.

However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.

Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government

According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.

A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.

Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.

The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.

Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out

A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.

Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.

In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.

Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters

Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.

Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”

Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”

Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.

Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey