Follow us on social

google cta
Washington is not telling truth about the Gaza pier

Washington is not telling truth about the Gaza pier

They say food is ‘flowing’ to the people, but data shows the opposite. Pull the curtain down on this theater now.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The Biden administration wants you to believe the U.S. is leading international efforts to get humanitarian relief into Gaza and that supplies are “flowing to Palestinians” via the military’s pier operation there.

On Monday, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder announced that to date,1,573 tons of aid had been delivered from the pier to the beach, including 492 tons since it reopened on Saturday after some bad weather knocked it out of commission last month.

But supplies from the pier aren’t flowing to Palestinians, and never really have.

Hardly any food from the pier on the Gaza coast has actually reached starving Gazans since it became operational on May 17. The World Food Program (WFP) said only 15 trucks from the pier reached its warehouse inside Gaza for distribution from May 17-18, and that no aid came from the pier from May 19–21.

In Rafah specifically, no aid will reach Palestinians in need so long as Israel’s military offensive persists. WFP halted all deliveries to Rafah on May 21 due to Israel’s invasion of the city.

In addition, on Sunday, the WFP announced that it “paused” distribution of any more humanitarian aid from the pier due to security concerns after a U.S.-backed Israeli operation killed nearly 300 Palestinians the day before. WFP is the U.N. agency in charge of coordinating deliveries from the pier into Gaza.

The 492 tons of aid the Pentagon just boasted about will sit in warehouses on the beach until further notice. Meanwhile, the U.N. says that all humanitarian operations in Gaza are on the brink of collapse.

The reality is that the $320 million (revised more recently down to $230 million) “maritime humanitarian corridor” that Biden first announced during his State of the Union address in March is not working, at least not for Palestinians. It does serve the Biden administration’s interests by making it look like the U.S. is “doing something” for the civilian population while supporting an Israeli policy that destroys and starves it. The pier, in essence, provides humanitarian cover for an inhume policy.

Pier one imports

Biden administration officials argue the pier isn’t a failure or public relations stunt but critics disagree.

On May 17, the first day the pier was operational, former USAID official and current president of Refugees International Jeremy Konyndyk said, “The pier is humanitarian theater. Much more about political optics than humanitarian assistance. … [T]he president is tweeting about a humanitarian gimmick while actual humanitarian capacity in Gaza grinds to a halt.”

On May 23, in response to a press question about Konyndyk’s comments, director of USAID’s Levant humanitarian response Dan Dieckhaus said, “You know, I would not call within a couple of days getting enough food and other supplies for tens of thousands of people for a month theater…everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I think we are already making a meaningful contribution to the overall effort.”

But according to U.N. humanitarian aid data of food imports into Gaza from January through May, far more food aid reached Gazans before the U.S. pier opened. On May 7, Israeli forces closed the Rafah crossing as part of its invasion of the city. By the end of the month, 66,181 fewer pallets of food reached Palestinians in May compared to April. The pier, which opened May 17, didn't come close to compensating for this shortfall: According to the IDF, just 1,806 pallets of food from the pier reached aid agency centers in Gaza before it broke apart in a storm on May 25.

Meanwhile, food and other aid is piling up outside Gaza at the Rafah land crossing.

Not enough food was getting into Gaza before Israel closed the Rafah crossing, either. Through March of this year, monthly food imports into Gaza were virtually identical to what they were in 2022, even though food needs are five times higher now than they were then. The U.N.’s humanitarian response plan for Palestine in 2022 implemented $226 million for food security and nutrition. Requirements for those sectors in 2024 stands at $1.1 billion.

Political optics

A new report from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Program concluded that 1.1 million Palestinians could face starvation by mid-July primarily because of “the devastating impact of the ongoing conflict” and “the heavy restrictions on access and goods.” The Biden administration enables the first problem by shipping weapons to Israel every 36 hours and tolerates the second by refusing to use the leverage those shipments afford to stop Israel from obstructing aid.

Some deny that that leverage exists, but Biden has already demonstrated that it does. On October 9, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, pledging that, “there will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.”

A couple weeks later, Gallant was pressed by Knesset lawmakers on why he agreed to let a trickle of aid in from Egypt. Gallant replied, “the Americans insisted and we are not in a place where we can refuse them. We rely on them for planes and military equipment. What are we supposed to do? Tell them no?”

Israel’s reliance on arms and political protection from the United States puts Biden in an extraordinarily powerful position to influence what Israel does and doesn’t do in Gaza. The current conditions on the ground reflect Biden’s policy choices. Currently, Israel is bombing civilian centers using U.S.-made munitions, while getting aid to Palestinians in need is “almost impossible,” and famine is imminent in Gaza everywhere it isn’t already happening.

Rather than change these conditions with a phone call to Israeli leadership, Biden told the U.S. military to build a pier.

There’s no time for humanitarian theater, according to the FAO/WFP report: “In the absence of a cessation of hostilities and increased access, the impact on mortality and the lives of the Palestinians now, and in future generations, will increase markedly with every day, even if famine is avoided in the near term.”


A satellite image shows a view of the remaining section of the trident pier, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, on the Gaza shoreline, May 29, 2024. Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.