RSS
Port of No Return: The US Plan for Aid Relief in Gaza
Aerial view shows a World Central Kitchen (WCK) barge loaded with food arriving off Gaza, where there is risk of famine after five months of Israel’s military campaign, in this handout image released March 15, 2024. Photo: Israel Defense Forces/Handout via REUTERS
The US has chosen to cross the Rubicon. In his 2024 State of the Union address, President Biden reminded Americans, “The United States has been leading international efforts to get more humanitarian assistance into Gaza.” He said, “I’m directing the US military to lead an emergency mission to establish a temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine, and temporary shelters.”
Washington has taken ownership of the crisis by committing significant US resources to mitigate the Gaza humanitarian emergency. It is now America’s problem to solve. The Marshall Plan saved Western Europe from starvation and Soviet domination, but it came at a serious price: the US became intimately and inextricably involved in European affairs, effectively becoming “the most important country in Europe.” The US Gaza port plan is the first step in a “Marshall Plan for Gaza.” It is the Port of No Return.
However, when we look at American aid missions that were attempted in other areas embroiled in war and conflict in the years since the original Marshall Plan, the US has had less success.
In the early 1980s, President Reagan deployed US Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force to stabilize the country amid its civil war and facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli forces. While their goal was to provide a neutral intervention to restore peace and order, the US forces increasingly found themselves embroiled in the conflict, as they were perceived as siding with the Lebanese government and its Christian allies against Muslim factions. The situation deteriorated dramatically on October 23, 1983, when a Hezbollah truck bomb destroyed the US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American service personnel. The devastating attack, one of the deadliest against US forces since World War II, led President Reagan to withdraw the remaining US forces, marking an end to the ill-fated intervention.
Similarly, in the early 1990s, the US initiated a humanitarian aid operation in Mogadishu, Somalia, to alleviate the severe famine and restore order amidst the country’s civil war. What was meant to be a UN-backed aid distribution operation escalated into a military engagement when local warlords appropriated all the aid and monopolized its distribution. The US resolved to end the control of the warlords through military force, culminating in the infamous 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, vividly depicted in the book and film Black Hawk Down. Intense urban warfare resulted in significant casualties, with 18 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded. On the Somali side, hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000 Somalis were killed. The dramatic failure of the operation prompted another embarrassing US withdrawal.
There is significant risk in endeavors of this kind. Hamas uses its monopoly on the distribution of resources, including foreign aid, to reward its members and supporters. It withholds these resources as a means of control. Power is a finite resource, and an increase in power for one party directly corresponds to a decrease in power for others. Should an alternative source of aid distribution emerge, this lever of Hamas’s power will greatly diminish. There is therefore a strong likelihood that Hamas or a related group will employ violence against aid distribution personnel (civilian or military) to provoke an American withdrawal.
It is also important to bear in mind that some in Gaza have adopted a strong Islamist worldview. These individuals will see the US effort not as a form of international aid relief but as the US attempting to gain a foothold in Dar al-Islam (the territory of Islam). During the Gulf War (1991-92), al-Qaeda made an argument about the sanctity of Dar al-Islam by criticizing the presence of US military forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden argued that it was a violation of Islamic principles for non-Muslim forces to be stationed in the land of the believers. He called for the expulsion of US forces and for Muslims to unite against what he perceived as a Western intrusion into Islamic territory. Some Palestinians are already calling the US port just another form of occupation. For Gazans who embrace Islamist ideology, expelling a US presence would be part of their jihad, and the use of force against Americans would be sanctioned.
In the current conflict, Iranian proxies are already targeting Americans. The Houthis of Yemen are attacking US warships and neutral shipping nearly daily. US forces in Iraq and Syria have faced over 130 attacks since October. In all probability, Iran’s surrogates in Gaza will also attack US forces when they arrive in the hope of driving them out. As one analyst put it, “The port will be a bullet magnet.” If casualties mount and the US abandons the project, it will strengthen Iran and deepen Tehran’s impression that the US is wavering in its regional support.
Contrary to media representation, Israel has been providing aid. A recent Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) report noted that “Since Hamas’s October 7 massacre, Israel has supported the transfer of 11,943 humanitarian aid trucks into Gaza. As of February 4, these deliveries included 144,030 tons of food, 20,780 tons of water, 23,160 tons of shelter equipment, 16,700 tons of medical supplies, 146 tanks of fuel, and 222 tanks of cooking gas.” This aid is being delivered while major combat operations are still ongoing, putting IDF soldiers, aid workers, and Gazan residents at risk. In a recent aid delivery attempt, Gazans rushed toward an aid truck, causing a stampede with significant loss of life.
Even with the significant risk involved, the effort may be worthwhile. The US has a storied history of successful humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) programs. The most celebrated would be the aforementioned Marshall Plan (1948-52). The Berlin Airlift (1948-49) was also a major US success. The US has achieved positive results in more recent HADR programs as well, including its responses to a massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean (2004), an earthquake in Haiti (2010), the massive Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (2013), Cyclone Idai in Mozambique (2019), and a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Turkey and Syria (2023).
In Gaza, the relief plan calls for a combination of forward basing out of Cyprus and non-combatant “seabasing” nearer to Gaza with a temporary pier and infrastructure. Gaza has a port, but it is a small fishing boat marina that is not suitable for this sort of operation.
The US military is planning a Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) operation. JLOTS is designed to facilitate the transport and distribution of personnel, equipment, and supplies from sea to shore in environments where traditional port facilities are limited or nonexistent. It involves a coordinated effort among multiple branches of the armed forces, utilizing various specialized equipment and techniques such as roll-on/roll-off ships, causeways, barges, and amphibious vehicles to offload cargo directly onto the shore. It is used when conventional ports are unavailable due to damage, conflict, or lack of infrastructure in remote or austere environments.
Pentagon spokesman Gen Ryder said, “[JLOTS] is a capability… that we are going to execute and enable us to get… up to 2,000,000 meals in [to Gaza] a day.” Also, the EU has donated barges laden with foodstuffs that will be consolidated in Cyprus. According to a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, the operation would involve the screening of cargo in Cyprus, with Israeli officials’ involvement.
Examples of JLOTS capabilities. Source: DoD screenshot republished in “DOD to Construct Pier to Deliver Humanitarian Aid to Gaza” by Mathew Olay, DoD News.
US Military Sealift Command (MSC) conducted a demonstration of its JLOTS capabilities in 2017 through an exercise involving an Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) ship. The USNS MONTFORD POINT (T-ESD-1) is a large vessel with a wide-open deck area and low freeboard, facilitating cargo transfer from conventional ships. The exercise demonstrated the feasibility of the “floating pier” concept. It showcased the ability to transfer large cargo at sea by using the MONTFORD POINT as a floating pier that would receive freight from traditional logistics vessels for further transfer by lighters or similar small vessels.
One day after President Biden’s speech, US Central Command announced that it is deploying five ships and 1,000 troops to build the offshore port and has already dispatched the US Army Vessel (USAV) GENERAL FRANK S. BESSON (LSV-1). The BESSON departed from Virginia and will arrive no earlier than the end of March. The BESSON is tasked with delivering the equipment necessary to establish the temporary pier. The USNS BENAVIDEZ (T-AKR-306), a BOB HOPE class ship, has been activated from the ready reserve to participate. The BENAVIDEZ is a large vessel that carries modules to build both floating and shore-based piers. The 7th Transportation Brigade from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, will oversee the JLOTS operation. Their mission is to “conduct multi-modal transportation operations in support of the Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration (RSOI) of joint and/or combined forces into a theater of operations.”
President Biden assured Americans in his speech that there would be no US military personnel with “boots on the ground.” It is unclear how the pier can be built securely and aid safely provided without a military presence. In addition, the pier facilities themselves need regular tending and maintenance. “No boots on the ground” likely means highly paid US and foreign contractors to do the job so US military and government personnel can avoid having to do so.
At a recent Pentagon press briefing, General Ryder was asked, “Does the DoD anticipate that Hamas will fire on them, on the JLOTS operation?” He replied, “That’s certainly a risk, but if Hamas truly does care about the Palestinian people, one would hope that this international mission to deliver aid to people who need it would be able to happen unhindered.” If the US is depending on Hamas’s goodwill for the success of this operation, it is likely to be disappointed.
By spearheading the Gaza Port operation, the US has not only underscored its commitment to addressing the dire humanitarian needs in Gaza but is also taking on significant inherent risks. The initiative mirrors historic US humanitarian missions, highlighting America’s capacity to mobilize substantial resources in response to global crises. While the plan aims to deliver essential aid and foster stability, it also exposes the US to risks associated with local power dynamics and anti-American sentiment, echoing past challenges in Lebanon and Somalia. Those were places where the US found itself entangled in local conflicts, with varying degrees of success and failure, all with a fair share of unintended consequences. For Washington this is a serious gamble with high stakes of either peace and stability or calamity and conflict.
David Levy is a retired US Navy Commander. He was the Director for Theater Security Cooperation for US Naval Forces Central Command and the US Air and Naval Attaché in Tunis, Tunisia. CDR. Levy is a Ph.D. candidate at Bar Ilan University in the Department of Political Science.
A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Port of No Return: The US Plan for Aid Relief in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Yale Adopts IHRA Definition, Brown Launches New Training Program Amid Trump Campus Antisemitism Crackdown
People protest the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, across the entrance to Yale, prior to commencement at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, US, May 20, 2024. Photo: Michelle McLoughlin via Reuters Connect.
Yale University has quietly adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, according to a new investigative report by the Yale Daily News, the school’s official campus newspaper.
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US — adopted a “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum as a reference tool which helps policymakers determine what constitutes an incident of antisemitism, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
Yale University apparently enacted the policy change following the inauguration of US President Donald Trump, the News said, noting that an archived webpage containing the section of the disciplinary code to which the definition was added shows a revision date of March 28. The paper added that the university never formally announced its adoption of what would have been a highly acclaimed move in some circles and a deplored one in others. Jewish civil rights groups such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) encourage the definition’s adoption, as well as codification in law, while others argue it weaponizes the American people’s abhorrence of antisemitism to censor criticism of Israel — an accusation its advocates regard as a slander.
Writing to the Yale Daily News, Yale University officials downplayed the significance of the measure, saying it is “not intended to infringe free speech or the free expression of ideas” and even denying that the school holds “a separate definition” of antisemitism.” The Algemeiner has asked the university to clear up the matter. This article will be updated accordingly.
Yale became a hub of anti-Israel activism last academic year, with protesters demanding that the school boycott the Jewish state.
In other higher education news, Brown University recently reconstituted its anti-discrimination trainings to comply with a July 2024 settlement negotiated with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, The Brown Daily Herald reported on Tuesday. “Brown’s response to reports of discrimination and harassment” will be upgraded by the new trainings, the university’s executive vice president for planning and policy, Russell Carey, told the paper. Spokesperson Brian Clark, volunteering information Carey declined to disclose, confirmed that they will address “antisemitism.”
Brown was accused in 2023 of responding inadequately to a number of antisemitic incidents, including a Jewish student being called a “Zionist pig Jew” in a complaint filed by the editorial board of the conservative higher education news outlet Campus Reform. Following its agreement with OCR, the university denied violating civil rights laws, stressing that the allegations which prompted the federal government to investigate it were lodged by an organization “who has no affiliation with Brown or presence on its campus.”
Writing in a press release, it continued: “Many of the required actions outlined in the resolution agreement are underway and previously announced by the university … In some cases, the university agreed to further enhance and clarify its existing policies and procedures. In other cases, the university agreed to expand previously announced efforts, such as broadening the scope of training on nondiscrimination and harassment.”
The reforms may have come too late. As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration plans to terminate $510 million worth of federal contracts and grants awarded to Brown University — an institution that is already struggling to cover a $46 million budget shortfall.
The university’s alleged failure to mount a response to the campus antisemitism crisis, as well as its embrace of the diversity, equity, and, inclusion (DEI) movement — perceived by many across the political spectrum as an assault on merit-based upward mobility and causing incidents of anti-White and anti-Asian discrimination — prompted the alleged pending action by the federal government, according to the right-leaning outlet The Daily Caller, which first reported the news last week.
Brown’s Jewish community has since come to the university’s defense, issuing a joint statement with the Brown Corporation which said that the campus is “peaceful and supportive campus for its Jewish community.”
The letter, signed by members of the local Hillel International chapter and Chabad on College Hill, continued: “Brown University is a place where Jewish life not only exists but thrives. While there is more work to be done, Brown, through the dedicated efforts of its administration, leadership, and resilient spirit of its Jewish community, continues to uphold the principles of inclusion, tolerance, and intellectual freedom that have been central to its identity since 1764.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Yale Adopts IHRA Definition, Brown Launches New Training Program Amid Trump Campus Antisemitism Crackdown first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli, French Jewish Leaders Slam Macron for Saying France Could Recognize Palestinian State in June
French President Emmanuel Macron speaks during a press conference in Paris, France, June 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephane Mahe
Israeli and French Jewish leaders sharply criticized French President Emmanuel Macron for saying that France is making plans to recognize a Palestinian state and could do so as early as June.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned France’s announcement, stating that such a move would only reward terrorism.
“A ‘unilateral recognition’ of a fictional Palestinian state, by any country, in the reality that we all know, will be a prize for terror and a boost for Hamas,” Saar wrote in a post on X, referring to the Palestinian terrorist group that has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades.
“These kinds of actions will not bring peace, security, and stability in our region closer — but the opposite: they only push them further away,” Israel’s top diplomat added.
A “unilateral recognition” of a fictional Palestinian state, by any country, in the reality that we all know, will be a prize for terror and a boost for Hamas.
These kind of actions will not bring peace, security and stability in our region closer – but the opposite: they only…— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 9, 2025
On Wednesday, Macron revealed that France could recognize a Palestinian state within the next two months at a United Nations conference in June, co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia, focused on a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while suggesting that other nations may join the effort.
“We must take the path of recognition [of the Palestinian state],” Macron told France 5 television. “So that’s what we’re gonna do in the coming months.”
He continued, “Our aim is to chair this conference with Saudi Arabia in June, where we could finalize this movement of mutual recognition [of a Palestinian state] by several parties.”
During the interview, Macron stated that recognizing a Palestinian state would allow France “to be clear in our fight against those who deny Israel’s right to exist — which is the case with Iran — and to commit ourselves to collective security in the region.”
“I won’t do it for unity or in order to please someone. I’ll do it because I think that at some point it would be fair,” the French leader said. “And also, because I want to take part in a collective dynamic, one that allows everyone who defends Palestine to also recognize Israel.”
Macron’s comments came after he traveled earlier this week to Cairo for talks with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi and Jordan’s King Abdullah II at a trilateral summit focused on the situation in Gaza and other regional developments.
Beyond Israel, the Jewish community in France also lambasted Macron for his comments.
The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), the main representative body of French Jews, also condemned Macron’s decision, stating that “the path to a just and lasting peace begins with the unconditional release of hostages and the surrender of Hamas.”
“Announcing today that France will soon recognize a Palestinian state while 59 hostages are still held in Gaza allows Hamas to claim an unacceptable political victory,” CRIF wrote in a post on X.
“How can we consider recognizing a state when part of its territory is controlled by a terrorist organization? The current war began with the massacre of over 1,200 people, including 50 French citizens, on Oct. 7, 2023, which you [President Macron] described as ‘the largest antisemitic massacre of the 21st century,’” the post read.
“Supporting the Palestinian people means, first and foremost, freeing them from Hamas, which has led the civilian population into the tragic misery of war,” CRIF continued. “The conditions are not yet in place to recognize a Palestinian state.”
Monsieur le Président de la République,
Annoncer aujourd’hui que la France reconnaîtra prochainement un Etat palestinien alors que 59 otages sont encore retenus à Gaza, c’est permettre au Hamas de clamer une inacceptable victoire politique.
Comment peut-on envisager reconnaître…
— CRIF (@Le_CRIF) April 10, 2025
Hamas welcomed Macron’s comments as a positive development.
“We welcome the statements made by French President Emmanuel Macron regarding his country’s readiness to recognize the State of Palestine,” Hamas official Mahmud Mardawi told AFP. He added that the announcement was “an important step that, if implemented, would constitute a positive shift in the international position towards the legitimate national rights of our Palestinian people.”
Last year, Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia recognized a Palestinian state, claiming that such a move would contribute to fostering a two-state solution and promote lasting peace in the region.
At the time, Israel condemned the decision as an “incitement to genocide” against the Jewish people. France said that “the conditions have yet been met for this decision to have a real impact on this process,” indicating support for such a move at a later date.
Out of the 27 total European Union member states, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden have also recognized a Palestinian state.
Meanwhile, Germany, Portugal, and the UK have all stated that the time is not right for recognizing a Palestinian state.
The post Israeli, French Jewish Leaders Slam Macron for Saying France Could Recognize Palestinian State in June first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Congress Advances Legislation to Punish Iran, Collaborators as Trump Admin Gears Up for Nuclear Talks
US President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office, on the day he signs executive orders, at the White House in Washington, DC, March 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
As the Trump administration prepares for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program this weekend, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday moved forward legislation that would impose more sanctions on those who collaborate with Tehran and its terrorist proxy groups.
The committee approved by a voice vote the Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act, legislation spearheaded by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) that would impose penalties on those who export, sell, or process Iranian petrochemical products.
“My bill before us today … will give the Trump administration the tools it needs to end the Iranian oil trade once and for all,” Lawler said. “Without these enablers, the regime’s oil operation will collapse, and that’s what we’re counting on.”
Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Committee, by a 45-6 margin, also voted to advance the No Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act, bipartisan legislation which seeks to issue penalties toward individuals who assist Iran in taking Americans hostage. The legislation, if passed, would prohibit those who have received federal terrorism and weapons of mass destruction sanctions from entering the United States.
Additionally, the legislation would mandate that the administration investigate and perhaps sanction any individual involved in the kidnapping and detention of American citizens.
Moreover, the bill would direct the secretary of state to decide whether to prohibit US passport holders from traveling to Iran due to the kidnappings of certain American nationals there.
The Sanction Sea Pirates Act, led by Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), was approved alongside the other bills in a bipartisan package. The legislation would penalize any person who “knowingly engages in piracy” with consequences, which include freezing their assets and banning them from traveling to the US. The bill was primarily advanced to target the Iran-backed Houthis, a US-designated terrorist organization that has disrupted international shipping from Yemen.
The movement in Congress comes as negotiations between the United States and Iran are scheduled to commence this Saturday in Oman. The Trump administration is attempting to curb Iran’s nuclear program, which Western countries believe is ultimately geared toward developing nuclear weapons, and has threatened “great danger” if an agreement cannot be reached. Tehran claims its nuclear program is only meant for civilian energy purposes.
Trump did not elaborate on the specifics of the schedule, but he did tell reporters from the Oval Office on Wednesday that he had a deadline in mind for when the negotiations must result in a solution that is acceptable.
“We have a little time, but we don’t have much time, because we’re not going to let them have a nuclear weapon. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said of Iran. “I’m not asking for much. I just — I don’t — they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”
Iran’s leaders have challenged Trump’s claim that the discussions will be “direct” negotiations, calling them “indirect.”
Trump said that he “absolutely” would support military operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program if the US cannot strike an agreement with Tehran. The US president added that Israel would “obviously be very much involved” in any military efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear sites.
“If it requires military, we’re going to have military,” the president said. “Israel will obviously be very much involved in that.”
The post US Congress Advances Legislation to Punish Iran, Collaborators as Trump Admin Gears Up for Nuclear Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login