The U.S., guilty by association in the launch of the war in 2015, has failed to fully engage its diplomacy in the service of peace, continuing instead to fuel the fighting with huge arms sales.
The internal war and outside intervention in Yemen appear to go on unabated under the neglectful eye of the Arab world and the international community. The recent armed struggle for Socotra has left the Southern Transitional Council (STC), supported by the United Arab Emirates, in charge of the island. A UNESCO-declared world heritage site, Socotra has been trampled by troops, armored trucks, and tanks, much to the detriment of its fragile ecosystem and historically peaceful population. Battles continue to rage just east of Aden, where STC fighters remain in a stand-off with troops loyal to President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi’s government for control of neighboring Abyan province—as part of the overall struggle for the entire south of Yemen. Farther north of Abyan, Houthi/Ansarullah troops are pursuing a months-long attempt to enter the capital of Marib and secure all oil and gas facilities there. To the west of Marib, a tense front still exists around the city of Hodeida, a strategic port for the importation of humanitarian assistance and potential export of oil via the Red Sea.
Of course, all this is aside from the main war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, which is being conducted by air, land forces, and rocketry over the capital Sanaa, the Houthis’ capital Saadah, and Saudi Arabia’s southern border at al-Jawf governorate. Added to that complex geopolitical picture is a pandemic that is sweeping over all without distinction as to party or regional affiliation. Indeed, there is a clear and full tragedy unfolding in Yemen.
Enter COVID-19
The devastating impact of war, disease, and poverty on the people of Yemen has been compounded by a now widespread epidemic for which the country was ill-prepared. At first, COVID-19 looked like it had somehow spared the country as one Middle Eastern country after another fell prey to the virus in early March. Although lacking reliable information from Yemen itself, international agencies now report that virus-related deaths have very likely exceeded the death toll from the war raging in the country since 2015.
Although lacking reliable information from Yemen itself, international agencies now report that virus-related deaths have very likely exceeded the death toll from the war raging in the country since 2015.
The alarming spread of COVID-19 in Yemen is cause to seriously doubt the sincerity—and even the sanity—of those who pursue victory through war instead of negotiations. This critique includes all sides to the conflict as they continue to give priority to improving their strategic positions on the ground. Numbers vary widely depending on the source of information, but a million infections is not an unreasonable estimate at this point. One thing is certain however: the spread of diseases has overwhelmed the country’s inadequate public health institutions. Instead of dramatically building up Yemen’s capacity and encouraging a coordinated regional and international effort to mitigate the spread of the deadly virus, the Arab coalition fighting the Houthis continues to prosecute the war directly from the air and via proxy forces on the ground. The vast sums being spent on the war primarily by the Arab coalition, if diverted to public health, could save millions of lives currently at risk. The fault, however, belongs to all those trying to fill the void at the center caused by the 2011 revolt, which led to the departure and ultimate demise of the late president, Ali Abdallah Saleh, and his replacement by a weak-to-nonexistent legitimate authority.
Yemeni, Saudi, and Emirati sins
Yemen has fallen into chaos because of the mistakes of an otherwise strong president, the late Ali Abdullah Saleh, who could not find it in himself or his advisors to listen to the protesters and invite them to help transition the country from authoritarianism and corruption into a more democratic and less corrupt system of government. War and chaos also resulted from the Houthi takeover of Sanaa in 2014, reflecting the clumsy efforts of the United Nations and the Gulf Cooperation Council to patch together a new social contract among the various Yemeni factions and regions. None of this was helped with the Saudi-led Arab coalition’s intervention in the country in 2015, ostensibly to repel the Houthi takeover, derail what the Saudis perceived as a growing Iranian menace on their southern border, and restore the internationally recognized government of President Hadi to power. Five years of this war have achieved quite the opposite: the entrenchment of the Houthis in Sanaa, a growing Iranian influence bucking up the Houthis, an increasingly divided country, and a marginalized Hadi government.
Five years of this war have achieved quite the opposite: the entrenchment of the Houthis in Sanaa, a growing Iranian influence bucking up the Houthis, an increasingly divided country, and a marginalized Hadi government.
Whatever the agenda of the Saudi and Emirati leadership, it could not have been pursued without the willing participation of Yemeni militias and armies on the ground. To start with, the Hadi government, living in the lap of luxury courtesy of the Saudi government, has been fighting for a secure foothold inside Yemen and has sought to keep control of Yemen’s central bank holdings. However, it has been unable to do that in either Sanaa (which was taken over by the Houthis) or Aden (where the STC challenges it). Hadi loyalists have been fighting in Marib, trying to fend off Houthi attacks to remain in control of oil and gas facilities in the area. The Hadi forces have also complained of inadequate support from Riyadh, especially because they have to fight on at least two fronts: north with the Houthis and south with the STC and other UAE-supported forces trying to form a separate state there. There are reports of the Saudis’ unhappiness with Hadi’s leadership, that they may be searching for alternatives. Indeed, everyone now questions the Hadi government’s legitimacy as well as the efficacy of continuing to vest this honor upon him when he, like every other major player in Yemen, is struggling to hold on to land and resources.
In fact, the Riyadh Agreement, purportedly a plan to merge the STC with the Hadi government and put an end to bloodshed and chaos in the south, has been suspect in the eyes of Hadi as well as analysts who see it as an abandonment of Hadi in favor of the STC. The hostile takeover of Socotra Island is the most recent example of the STC trying to assert southern independence with clear support from the UAE and suspected connivance from Saudi Arabia. There is no military value to the island for the STC, save that of adding territory to what it already controls in the south, in addition to how the island might help the UAE’s maritime ambitions in the Arabian Sea. It represents, however, a significant defeat for the Hadi government and a further squeezing out of their forces from the south. What is noteworthy here is the withdrawal of the small Saudi force that had gone to the island in 2018 after the UAE sent an expeditionary force, ostensibly to mediate between UAE forces and the island’s population. STC leader Aidarous al-Zubaidi had recently returned from a visit to Riyadh to confer with the Saudi leadership, leading to speculation at the time that the Saudis were lending legitimacy to his desire for an independent southern state.
If the reported Saudi offer of a Riyadh Agreement part II is true, it would shed even more doubt on Saudi intentions and add credibility to reports of their discontinuing support to President Hadi. This offer evidently suggested the STC withdraw its troops from Aden and into Abyan, with no mention of where Hadi’s forces would be deployed. If implemented—and there is no chance of that happening, in any case—it would mean an expansion of STC influence into Abyan, a contested governorate not currently under their control.
Under the best of circumstances and assuming good intentions, Saudi and Emirati leaders are under intensifying pressure to cut their losses in Yemen, given the increasing cost of the war, lower revenue due to the depressed prices of oil, and the vulnerability of their own countries to rocket attacks and land incursions in southern Saudi Arabia. The management of Yemen, as administered territory, also seems too much of a challenge for the Arab coalition, unless one wants to assume the worst and conclude that the prevalent chaos is exactly what they wanted to achieve.
The management of Yemen, as administered territory, also seems too much of a challenge for the Arab coalition, unless one wants to assume the worst and conclude that the prevalent chaos is exactly what they wanted to achieve.
The Houthis, whose motives in capturing Sanaa in 2014 were never transparent, stopped short of taking over Aden due to local resistance and the military intervention by the Arab coalition. They have alternated between trying to hold on to northern territory they control and pushing to expand their area. This lack of transparency has become a hallmark of Houthi rule; most recently, the Houthis were legitimately accused of hoarding information about the spread of COVID-19, brazenly declaring that revealing accurate information on the spread of the disease only causes panic among the population. Information has also been withheld on how they collect and spend their revenue. Specifically, concern has been voiced about widespread corruption within the disbursement of international aid, both by the authorities in Sanaa and by the UN agencies directing and monitoring the process.
The sins of the international community
Since 2011, three successive UN special envoys have failed to stitch together an agreement to reconcile the various parties in conflict and to get the permanent members of the UN Security Council to put their weight behind an effort to end the war. The latest of the envoys, Martin Griffiths, wasted two years trying to secure the neutrality of the vital Hodeida port while the real war raged elsewhere in Yemen and Yemeni and regional parties continued to fundamentally disagree on what a final agreement would look like.
The United States, guilty by association in the launch of the war in 2015, has failed to fully engage its diplomacy in the service of peace, continuing instead to fuel the fighting with huge arms sales, training of fighter-pilots, and putting in place a missile defense system in an extensive but futile effort to guard against rocket attacks against sensitive targets inside Saudi Arabia. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly urged the Trump Administration to suspend arms sales to the region, arguing that peace and stability in Yemen are in the best national security interests of the United States. The latest legislative effort, by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), does not seem any more promising than previous attempts—at least while the Republican majority continues to block such moves.
Yemen needs Yemenis
Young men and women from Yemen are now spread far and wide across Europe, the United States, and Asia. Through their various engagements and contributions, they have demonstrated the ability of a new Yemeni generation to launch a rebuilding of their country and lead it into the future. Oil and gas potential is very promising and could well support such efforts once the war ends. If the international community seems incapable or unwilling to stop the bloodletting, it remains incumbent on Yemeni leaders themselves to use the good counsel of their youth to patch up their differences and enable a positive and constructive transition into the future.
Nabeel A. Khoury is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. A retired foreign service officer, he most recently served as director of the Near East South Asia office of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
In an interview with Foreign Policy on Monday, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg doubled down on his hawkish outlook toward Russia.
Stoltenberg, who has been NATO chief since 2014 and will be replaced by former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in October, indicated that Since North Korea, China, and Iran have been supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, that NATO should work more closely with its allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
He added:
“North Korea is providing an enormous amount of, in particular, ammunition to Russia. And a lot of that is transported on railroad, railroad which is crossing the border from North Korea, the land border, into Russia, and then all the way to the frontlines, and that capacity is quite huge to transport by railroad, and that's also reason why it is important to continue to have severe sanctions on North Korea, and also reason why NATO has stepped up further the cooperation we have with our Asia Pacific partners, that includes South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.”
When interviewer Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, mentioned the potential for NATO overextension and that sanctions have not historically worked, Stoltenberg replied, “so while NATO is a regional alliance, we need a global approach, and that includes also our approach to China. Because again, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that our security is not regional. “Our security is global.”
He then added, “what happens in Asia matters for Europe. What happens in Europe matters for Asia. Or, as the Japanese Prime Minister said recently, that what happens in Ukraine can happen in Asia today can happen in Asia tomorrow.”
He also pushed the narrative that China and Russia were closer than ever "That's not because NATO has pushed them together," he charged, "It's because they align in standing of what they believe in a different world order.”
Because of this, Stoltenberg said he believes that increased sanctions are necessary.
This narrative should be challenged, said Mark Episkopos, Eurasia fellow at the Quincy Institute. “Stoltenberg’s comments reflect the catechistic view — one that stubbornly persists even in the lack of any corroborating evidence — that “Dragonbear,” or the Sino-Russian axis against the West, is the inevitable result of what he and others see as an global, predetermined conflict between the two incompatible poles of democracy and authoritarianism.”
“In fact, this convergence is the result of concrete choices made by Western policymakers since the end of the Cold War,” he added. “The Western maximum-pressure campaign against Russia after 2022 has failed in its basic purpose of compelling Moscow to relent its invasion of Ukraine, but it has successfully severed Russia from the Western economic and political sphere in a way that greatly increased its commercial and diplomatic dependence on China.”
Meanwhile, Stoltenberg said he strongly supports Ukraine using long range missiles to fire into Russian territory, stating that they were imperative if Ukraine was to take out Moscow’s artillery positions.
When questioned whether this could potentially push President Putin into using nuclear weapons, the NATO chief seemed to suggest that Putin would not act and therefore the West could keep pushing. “We are monitoring and tracking very closely what Russia is doing,” he said, however, “so far, we haven't seen any changes in their nuclear posture that require any changes from our side.”
The unfortunate reality is that when a party chooses to utilize nuclear arms, escalation is hard to manage.
What about Ukraine’s possible NATO membership? Stoltenberg said the process to join has been streamlined, with Ukraine no longer having to submit a Membership Action Plan, and is now awaiting a formal invitation. No timeline was given — but the outgoing NATO chief was quick to highlight how integrated the alliance and Ukraine were becoming.
He touted the fact that Ukrainian forces are being integrated into NATO standards, training command facilities are getting set up in Poland and Germany, and the establishment of the NATO Ukraine Council, which is, according to NATO “the joint body where Allies and Ukraine sit as equal participants to advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation and Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO. It provides for joint consultations, decision-making and activities. It also serves as a crisis consultation mechanism between NATO and Ukraine.”
He also reiterated that Ukraine’s path to NATO was “irreversible.”
keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks
In an interview on September 3, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland lent credence to reports that Western powers pressured Kyiv to reject a deal during the Ukraine-Russia peace process in April 2022 that would have ended the Russian invasion.
“Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on,” said Nuland, pointing to the requirement that Ukraine’s military be subject to hard caps on personnel and weaponry.
Her assertions can be added to a series of comments made by a host of officials and diplomats who have made similar claims. According to a Foreign Affairs article from October 2022, multiple former senior U.S. officials said that “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.” This supports the idea that a workable solution was present in Istanbul.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett played a large role in those April 2022 negotiations. In an interview, he also claimed that Russia and Ukraine were willing to make major concessions and end the conflict, until pressure from then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson convinced Zelensky to back down from such a deal. Davyd Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative at the talks, made a similar claim. “They were hoping almost to the end to put pressure on us to sign such a document and accept neutrality. It was a big deal for them,” he said in November 2023, referring to the Russians. “They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political ‘additions.’”
Nuland’s comments provide additional perspective to how Washington was thinking about the situation. “People inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart,” she said.
It’s unclear at this point who those people “outside Ukraine” Nuland is referring to were, and how much direct authority they had in the situation.
Indeed, according to Mark Episkopos, Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute, “The extent to which these Western reservations were decisive insofar as they constituted a hard veto over the peace talks is a trickier question. One can reasonably surmise that Ukraine would have found it difficult to ink a deal that did not command at least tacit support from the Western countries on which it overwhelmingly relies.”
He added, “Victoria Nuland's comments lend further credence to the proposition that a settlement between Russia and Ukraine was on the table in Istanbul, that the West played a role in shaping Ukrainian thinking on the desirability of pursuing negotiations, and that Western leaders apparently conveyed the view that it was a bad deal.
In other Ukraine war news this week:
— President Biden is mulling over whether or not to cross another one of Putin’s red lines. According to The New York Times, Biden is meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday to discuss whether or not to extend the current 60 mile limit on the use of U.S. weapons over the border into Russia. European powers who gave Ukraine “bunker buster” missiles seem to be waiting on Washington’s approval before also allowing these munitions to be used against targets far into Russia.
— The U.S. accused Iran of sending missiles to assist the Kremlin in its fight against Ukraine. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Tuesday that Iran had begun supplying these munitions to allow the Russians to keep some of their own in reserve. “We’ve warned Tehran publicly, we’ve warned Tehran privately, that taking this step would be a dangerous escalation,” he said. “Russia has now received shipments of these missiles.” Blinken added that in exchange, Russia was assisting Tehran with its nuclear program. The U.S., France, Germany, and the UK responded with a new round of economic sanctions on Iran. Spokespeople from Tehran and the Kremlin deny the arms shipment allegations altogether.
— Ukraine launched a drone attack on Moscow on Tuesday September 10. Reuters reports that the attack killed one woman and damaged homes in the city. Dozens of people were evacuated, with three airports in Moscow being temporarily shut down. This was part of Ukraine’s largest drone attack thus far, with Russia claiming to have destroyed around 20 drones in Moscow, and 124 in other regions.
— Russia responded to the drone attacks and the recent Kursk invasion by initiating counterattacks on Thursday. CNBC summarizes the new operation, explaining that Russian troops have already taken back control of around 10 settlements in Kursk. Putin has reportedly ordered Kursk to be recaptured by October 1.
keep readingShow less
A Palestinian man rides a bicycle past a damaged vehicle where employees from the World Central Kitchen (WCK), including foreigners, were killed in an Israeli airstrike, according to the NGO as the Israeli military said it was conducting a thorough review at the highest levels to understand the circumstances of this "tragic" incident, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Deir Al-Balah, in the central Gaza, Strip April 2, 2024. REUTERS/Ahmed Zakot
Despite a meticulous process in place to ensure aid worker safety in Gaza, the leading cause of death in the humanitarian sector over the last 11 months has been Israeli airstrikes.
Of the 378 aid workers killed worldwide since October 7, more than 75 percent have been killed in Gaza or the West Bank, according to the Aid Worker Security Database. The number of humanitarians killed in Palestinian territory in the last three months of 2023 was more than the deadliest full year ever recorded for aid workers.
This includes an Israeli airstrike Wednesday Sept. 11 on a school being used as a shelter in Nuseirat in Central Gaza. According to reports, 18 were killed, including children and six UNRWA aid workers, the deadliest single event for that organization since the start of the war.
Israeli attacks on aid organizations have become routine, despite systems in place to avoid humanitarian deaths. Through a process called deconfliction, aid groups coordinate with warring parties to avoid being attacked. Popular deconfliction mechanisms used by aid groups in Gaza include clearly marking their assets, arranging their movements with Israeli authorities, and sharing their location with the Israeli military.
However, a disturbing pattern has emerged: Aid groups share their coordinates with Israeli authorities and then are attacked by the IDF at those same coordinates.
Christopher Lockyear, Secretary General of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), told the United Nations Security Council in February that “this pattern of attacks is either intentional or indicative of reckless incompetence.” Forty-eight hours earlier, a 120mm Israeli tank shell exploded in a MSF facility in Khan Younis, killing two people and severely injuring six others. It was the second time a MSF facility had been attacked by Israeli forces.
The White House is aware of this trend. In May, a Biden administration report to Congress noted the following:
"One specific area of concern is the impact of Israel’s military operations on humanitarian actors. Despite regular engagement from humanitarian actors and repeated USG interventions with Israeli officials on deconfliction/coordination procedures, the IDF has struck humanitarian workers and facilities. While Israel repeatedly committed to improve deconfliction and implemented some additional measures, those changes did not fully prevent subsequent strikes involving humanitarian workers and facilities.”
“Concern” might be too strong a word to express the White House’s interest in preventing humanitarian deaths. The same day successive Israeli precision drone strikes killed seven aid workers, including one American citizen, from World Central Kitchen — a humanitarian group founded by Chef José Andrés — Biden approved the transfer of over 2,000 bombs to Israel.
Humanitarian organizations can be based in a Western country (including one upon which Israel relies for weapons), have a direct line to the IDF, follow all deconfliction procedures to a T, and still be attacked by the IDF. And when they have been, the Biden administration has done nothing but issue words of concern from the briefing podium. This lesson is not lost on aid workers: After a nurse from Project Hope was killed by an Israeli airstrike in March, the organization’s director of emergency response and preparedness asked his staff if they wanted to start sleeping in a zone deconflicted with Israeli authorities. All of the staff members said no.
What follows is a non-exhaustive list of 14 Israeli attacks on known aid worker locations compiled from media reports, organizational statements, and independent investigations. Reporting by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch was especially valuable. In each case, the aid groups had notified Israeli authorities of their location and movements, their vehicles or facilities were clearly marked as humanitarians, and were often operating in Israeli-designated “safe zones,” but they were attacked anyway by Israeli forces.
The Biden administration held Israel to account for zero of these 14 incidents.
Fourteen times aid groups were attacked after giving the IDF their location
November 18, 2023: Israeli forces attacked a convoy of five clearly-marked MSF vehicles, killing two MSF staff members. MSF had coordinated the convoy’s movement with Israeli authorities and followed the route prescribed by the Israeli military. MSF staff members saw no military targets in the area when they were attacked. MSF requested an explanation from the IDF but received no response.
December 8, 2023: The Israeli Navy fired at facilities affiliated with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) in Rafah with 20mm cannon rounds, damaging the west side of the two buildings. UNRWA officials had repeatedly shared the coordinates of the buildings with Israeli officials, including on the same day of the attack. Agency staff told Human Rights Watch that they were unaware of any military targets in the area. Afterwards, the Israeli military said the attack was carried out by mistake.
December 16, 2023: An IDF tank fired several rounds at the Convent of the Sisters of Mother Teresa (Missionaries of Charity), part of the Holy Family Catholic Parish compound in Gaza. The attack displaced the 54 disabled people sheltering there, leaving some without the respirators “that some of them need to survive,” the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said in a statement.
An aid worker was reportedly injured in the attack. Later that day, an Israeli sniper killed two women sheltering at the church, shooting one woman as she tried to carry the other to safety. When others in the church ran toward the women, Israeli snipers shot them too, wounding several, including two children. Pope Francis condemned the attack, calling it “terrorism.”
Emails between Catholic Relief Services and U.S. Senate staff obtained by Politico show that Catholic Relief Services (one of the largest Christian aid organizations operating in Gaza) had provided the coordinates of the two buildings to Senate staffers, who then relayed that information to the IDF. The IDF confirmed the location of the buildings that Catholic Relief Services requested for protection. The aid group also provided aerial photos of the facilities directly to Israeli authorities. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem Church said they shared their GPS coordinates with the IDF several times before the attack.
December 28, 2023: A convoy of U.N. aid vehicles were shot at by Israeli forces in central Gaza as it was returning from delivering aid in the north. The vehicles were clearly-marked with U.N. insignia, traveling along a route designated by the Israeli military and had coordinated its plans with Israeli authorities beforehand.
January 8, 2024: An Israeli tank fired at a clearly-marked MSF shelter in Khan Younis housing more than 100 staff and their family members, killing a five-year-old girl. MSF had previously notified the IDF of the shelter’s location. Israeli forces denied that they fired a round at the shelter, but remnants of an Israeli-made tank shell were discovered right outside the building.
January 18, 2024: An Israeli airstrike struck a residential compound housing staff from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) in Al-Mawasi, an Israeli-designated safe zone. The blast injured several workers and severely damaged the building. As a result, six emergency medical workers had to leave their posts, and IRC and MAP surgeons suspended their work at Nasser hospital. Forensic evidence suggests the munition used in the attack was a U.S.-made 1,000-pound MK-83 bomb, reportedly dropped by a U.S.-made F-16 aircraft. British officials had used high-level diplomatic channels to ensure the compound was deconflicted with the IDF. A month before the strike, the Israeli military explicitly reassured aid staff through text messages that they were safe. “We’re aware of the location” of the compound, a message from an IDF official read. The MAP employee then clarified whether the building is still safe. “Yes,” replied the IDF official.
Israel provided six different — and often conflicting — explanations for the attack. It said it wasn’t operating in the area; it said it was attempting to hit a target next to the MAP-IRC compound; it said it wasn’t actually a bomb but a piece of the aircraft fuselage. The IDF told The New York Times that they didn’t strike the location at all.
January 31, 2024: Israeli forces bombed the offices of the Belgian development agency, Enabel, completelydestroying the building. Handicap International, an NGO, had offices in the same structure. Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib said that Israeli authorities “knew very well that Enabel’s offices were located in this building.” Earlier that day, the Belgian government announced it would not suspend funding for UNRWA, after the Israeli government claimed withoutevidence that UNRWA staff had participated in the October 7 massacre.
In mid-February, Israeli forces claimed it had not bombed the Enabel building, but that it was destroyed when they blew up the building next door for an unspecified military reason.
February 5, 2024: Israeli ships shelled a clearly-marked UNRWA convoy, damaging one of the aid trucks. The convoy was stopped at an Israeli-designated holding point when it was shelled. UNRWA had coordinated the convoy’s movement with Israeli authorities. As a result of the attack, UNRWA had to pause its operations in northern Gaza for nearly three weeks, affecting 200,000 people. Israeli authorities later acknowledged the attack and said it had put in place “prevention measures” to prevent another incident. The next month, the Israeli government blocked UNRWA from providing any food assistance to northern Gaza.
February 20, 2024: Two family members of MSF staff were killed when an Israeli tank fired a shell at a MSF shelter. Seven others, mostly women and children, were injured. A large MSF flag was clearly visible on the side of the building. Israeli forces provided MSF with no warning before the attack and no explanation afterwards.
March 9, 2024: An Anera employee was killed in his home along with his six-year-old son and several neighbors in an Israeli airstrike. The building was registered with the Israeli military as a “sensitive site.” Email records show that Anera had repeatedly shared coordinates and photos of the staff shelter with the IDF, including days before the strike. A precision-guided munition was likely used in the attack.
April 1, 2024: Multiple precision Israeli drone strikes on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) convoy killed seven aid workers, including an American citizen. The Washington, DC-based group had coordinated its route with the IDF beforehand. The vehicles were struck in a deconfliction zone controlled by the Israeli military. WCK founder José Andrés said Israeli forces targeted his colleagues “systematically, car by car.” Forensic evidence backs up Andrés’s claim. “This was not just a bad luck situation where ‘oops’ we dropped the bomb in the wrong place,” Andrés said, pointing to the fact that it was clearly-marked humanitarian convoy with colorful WCK logos on the vehicle roofs, and the 1.8 kilometer distance between the first and the third car in the convoy, each. It was “very clear who we are and what we do,” he added.
IDF Spokesman Danial Hagari said WCK had “coordinated everything correctly with the IDF in advance” and blamed “internal failures.” President Joe Biden said he was “outraged and heartbroken” by the deaths, and called on Israel to investigate itself. But for WCK’s founder, “The IDF cannot credibly investigate its own failure,” Andrés said.
April 9, 2024: A clearly-marked UNICEF aid truck was reportedly hit by Israeli gunfire south of the Salah Al-Din checkpoint. The vehicle was at a holding point when it was struck by several bullets coming from the direction of the Israeli checkpoint. The IDF had approved the convoy beforehand. The Israeli military denied that its troops had fired the shots.
August 27, 2024: A U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) convoy came under fire near an Israeli checkpoint at the Wadi Gaza bridge. As the vehicles approached the checkpoint after receiving multiple clearances to proceed, Israeli troops opened fire, hitting one WFP vehicle at least ten times. Several bullets struck the vehicle’s windows, just above the clearly-visible U.N. insignia and WFP logo emblazoned on the side doors. Israeli officials blamed a “communication error” for the attack.
August 29, 2024: An Israeli airstrike on an Anera aid convoy killed four Palestinians as it was en route to the Emirati Red Crescent Hospital. The route was coordinated and approved by Israeli authorities. Israeli officials claim the lead car the IDF struck was carrying many weapons, but there was no indication that weapons were present. The IDF provided Anera no warning before carrying out the attack.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.