In a recent revelation underscored by a U.S. watchdog report, it comes to light that President Joe Biden, against the advice rendered by some individuals on his team, sought to construct a temporary pier in an attempt to distribute aid to Gaza. These individuals, part of the U.S. Agency for International Development, had cautioned on the feasibility and duplicity of such an effort, advocating for alternative measures to persuade Israel towards opening land crossings which they considered a more efficient medium.
Despite professional advice, Biden proceeded with his intention, announcing his plans to expedite aid to the war-torn Palestinian territories using this temporary pier. This was unveiled during his State of the Union address earlier this year. With an allocated budget of $230 million for the military-run venture, formally known as the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore system (JLOTS), the operation was designed to function merely for a span of about 20 days.
However, the project proved to be an embodied failure, with multiple logistical and security issues leading to the withdrawal of aid groups by July. This premature termination, unfortunately, left the starving Palestinians bereft of promised supplies of food and other essential emergency resources. The USAID staff had long voiced concerns that using JLOTS could potentially compromise and distract from the push for opening land crossings, a measure coveted for its proven efficiency and effectiveness in transporting aid.
However, the presidential directive summoned the agencies to use JLOTS and they complied grudgingly. Despite the United Nations’ grim report of food scarcity amongst Gaza’s approximately 2.3 million inhabitants, with more than half a million battling starvation, Biden’s administration projected a highly ambitious goal. It set out to feed 1.5 million people for 90 days through the proposed sea route and temporary pier.
The plan quickly foundered, living up to the warnings issued by the staffers. Instead of achieving the target, it managed only to scrape together enough provisions to feed about 450,000 individuals barely for a month before prematurely closing operations. In a further blow to the endeavor, severe waves and unfavorable weather conditions repeatedly caused damage to the pier.
Adding to the logistical complications, the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) halted its cooperation with the project following an Israeli rescue operation conducted in the vicinity. This led to concerns about the perceived neutrality and independence of the WFP workers amid the conflict, resulting in a further reduction of the already limited aid reaching the Palestinians.
Sean Savett, U.S. National Security Council spokesperson, attested to the purported ‘real impact’ of getting food to the Palestinians, despite the myriad of obstacles. However, his claim raised eyebrows since the project seemed more or less a failure if the watchdog’s report and the reality on the ground are held to account. Savett declared as part of a statement that the U.S. has ‘left no stone unturned.’ Unfortunately, this seemingly unturned stone provided little respite to the Palestinians facing a dire humanitarian plight.
The report from the watchdog did not only expose the missteps in the project implementation but also alleged that the United States reneged on commitments to the World Food Program. These assurances were initially made to incline the U.N. agency to participate in the distribution of supplies from the pier into Palestinian hands. Additionally, the U.S. had agreed to the WFP’s conditions that involved placing the pier in north Gaza–the region most in need of aid– and having a U.N. member nation secure the pier.
Contrary to these conditions, the pier was inappropriately installed in central Gaza by the Pentagon. This raised eyebrows, with the WFP staff revealing to the USAID watchdog that the U.S. military had chosen the location to better secure their interests rather than catering to the needs of the people. Clearly, the concern was for the security of the pier and the military itself, confounding the purpose of the humanitarian endeavor.
As the allegations stacked up, the report also indicated that the deal that internal security would be provided by a neutral U.N. member nation was callously abandoned. In the absence of any such nation willing to carry out the task, the responsibility was inherited by Israel’s military. This strategic flaw added another layer to the failed endeavor.
The aforementioned concerns were reportedly brought up early in the project by USAID employees who predicted that the project might inhibit overall aid efforts. In response, USAID added additional staff to address both the pier and the land routes simultaneously. However, this non-strategic response only added to the complexities without solving the inherent issues of the plan.
To cut a long story short, Biden’s directive to create a temporary pier for aid turned out to be a catastrophe. Despite the multiple warnings and concerns expressed by the USAID staff and the shortcomings illuminated by the watchdog’s report, the administration blindly persisted only to fall short of their own goals.
The ineffective approach not only failed to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but also undermined the efficiency and efficacy of alternative aid distribution channels. This ineffective approach appeared to have prioritized ineffective methods over proven methods of aid delivery, thus undermining the potential impact their efforts could have had.
In the end, Biden’s inadvisable directive manages to convey an image of haste and illary-planning lurking behind a facade of humanitarian effort. It serves as a testament to how the administration’s policy direction possibly compromised what could have been more productive avenues for aid delivery.
The whole debacle begs many questions–why resort to an unproven, less efficient method of aid delivery when more effective alternatives exist? Did the overly ambitious end goal justify the results? Either way, the Palestinians continue to suffer. It is apparent that the poor handling of a critical humanitarian situation casts a shadow on the Biden administration’s ability to formulate effective strategies and follow through.