Follow us on social

google cta
Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now?

Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now?

The administration gave Israel until Nov. 12 to open up Gaza to food and basics like medicine.

Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

We are just a few days away from the Nov. 12 deadline set out by the administration to key Israeli leaders, demanding the improvement of humanitarian conditions in Gaza under the threat of withdrawing military aid.

While the State Department acknowledged this week that Israel has so far failed to make any such progress, it has yet to back up its initial warning or outline what the consequences for Israel might be.

Blinken and Austin’s Oct. 13 letter demands entry of at least 350 food trucks into Gaza per day, among other requirements. Using UN data, the BBC reported last week that only 35 aid trucks entered Gaza per day in the first three weeks of October — the lowest recorded average since the start of the war last year.

According to PBS, Blinken told reporters Nov. 1 that the U.S. has been closely following Israel’s adherence to the letter’s demands.

“There’s been progress, but it’s insufficient, and we’re working on a daily basis to make sure Israel does what it must do to ensure that this assistance gets to people who need it inside of Gaza,” he said.

Recent comments from the State Department, however, make it unclear how the U.S. is assessing Israeli action — or lack thereof — on the administration’s letter.

“We are not at the end, where we are able to make an assessment. But I can tell you the situation has not been good enough for some time, and the situation has not improved sufficiently in [the three weeks] since we sent that letter. There is still a week or so to go until we reach the end of the period, but there is much more that we need to see them do,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a Nov. 4 press briefing.

In the 30-day window the U.S. outlined in the letter, Israel has not only failed to improve the flow of humanitarian aid in Gaza, but also formally voided its 1967 contract with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — ending operations for the largest provider of aid to Palestinian refugees.

This move follows the near-unanimous passage of two bills last week by the Knesset, Israel’s legislative body, which banned the agency from any activities in Israel or its controlled areas and labeled the UNRWA a “terror group.”

UNRWA said on Monday that the operational ban will lead to a “collapse” of humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip. The agency distributes aid, runs shelters and maintains key infrastructure in Gaza and has distributed food parcels to over 1.9 million Palestinians since the war began.

Even before UNRWA’s termination, conditions in Gaza had been growing increasingly dire. The UN World Food Program warned last week that there could soon be widespread famine in the enclave if immediate humanitarian progress is not made. A recent report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) documenting conditions from June to September said that 96% of Gaza’s population is facing acute food insecurity and over 22% are experiencing “an extreme lack of food, starvation, and exhaustion of coping capacities.”

Miller said the administration opposes Israel’s legislation because UNRWA plays a “critical role,” and that there is no other way right now to distribute aid sufficiently. However, he refused to comment on any potential sanctions or retributive U.S. government action stemming from either this decision or the unmet expectations of increased humanitarian flow outlined in the letter.

At the briefing, Miller also had a kerfuffle with Associated Press reporter Matt Lee when asked about Israel’s UNRWA decision and how it might affect the conditions laid out in the letter. Miller reiterated the Department’s concerns about Israel’s decision and Gaza’s humanitarian situation overall, but when Lee pressured him to provide a “letter grade” on Israel’s adherence to humanitarian expectations, Miller laughed and said, playing into the analogy, that you don’t hand out grades in the middle of the semester.

Israel’s stated justification for terminating relations with UNRWA is the connection of several of its former employees with Hamas. Israel previously accused 19 UNRWA staffers of involvement in the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks against Israel, of which nine were fired by the UN in August based on evidence “sufficient to conclude that they may have been involved in the 7 October attacks.” The U.S. did not dispute these claims but expressed with “low confidence” in the strength Israel’s findings, according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal in February,

According to Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA’s Commissioner General, Israel has killed 223 of the agency’s employees since the war in Gaza began — a tally the UN says is the highest for a single conflict in its history.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN Danny Danon re-emphasized the dominant Israeli state perspective on Monday, positing that “The State of Israel will continue to cooperate with humanitarian organizations but not with organizations that promote terrorism against the State of Israel.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said last week that the argument of no alternatives to UNRWA is fictional, citing Israeli claims that only 13% of aid to Palestinians goes through the agency. Officials from COGAT, the wing of the Israeli military in charge of humanitarian aid for Palestinians, say it is sufficiently providing for Gaza.

Senior COGAT official Elad Goren said most aid distributed in the north is going to Gaza City, and falsely claimed that there is “no population” left in regions of northern Gaza like Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya, according to reporting from PBS.

When asked about why aid was not going to other northern regions like Jabaliya, a dense refugee camp facing a new Israeli offensive, Goren said the population is being evacuated and those still there have “enough assistance” from the previous months’ shipments. This past weekend, Al Jazeera reported heavy Israeli bombardment in Jabaliya, in which at least 50 children were killed.

With less than a week remaining before Blinken and Austin’s attempt at hardball reaches its critical point — and at least $3.8B in annual defense aid to its ally hanging in the balance — it remains to be seen what the U.S. will do about Israel’s continuous failures to improve the humanitarian devastation in Gaza and comply with American demands.


Top photo credit: Palestinians, including children wait to buy bread in front of the only bakery in Dair EL-Balah, Gaza. Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages Dair EL-Balah Gaza Strip Palestinian Territory 241024_Dair_EL_Balah_OSH_0013 Copyright: xapaimagesxOmarxAshtawyxxapaimagesx
google cta
Reporting | 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.