Note: This piece builds on a previous post, which, I realized, needed a more detailed exploration. It is presented as an article only because of its length - with no academic claims. It assembles information to better discuss the implications of the maritime corridor and its humanitarian use. Thanks to Tanja Berretta for her suggestions.

Humanitarian aid cannot be blind.

It should not be 'political' - but it must understand politics.

The maritime corridor in Gaza is a case in point: good intentions (=bringing more relief) might come at high costs if politics are downplayed. The price is prolonged war, starvation, and oppression—instead of a needed ceasefire.

What makes a humanitarian organization good and trustworthy is not just the capacity to deliver but its 'capacity to navigate dilemmas and complexities and anticipate negative outcomes. The history of humanitarianism is plagued by good short-term intentions and fixes that turn into humanitarian nightmares. Moreover, humanitarian actors can be, knowingly or unknowingly, manipulated into participating in "aidwashing" - where aid serves to mask other motives. Agencies must recognize this risk and strive to maintain the integrity of humanitarian action - rather than becoming tools for manipulative agendas.

The creation of the maritime corridor is a key and pressing example. It marks a critical point in addressing Gaza's crisis. Are organizations supporting it now (Open Arms and World Central Kitchen) instrumentalized or co-opted into aid washing? And, more broadly, what does the setup of the maritime corridor tell us about the challenges for humanitarian action in Gaza?

It might be hard to grasp the full picture. So, here are a few places of the puzzle. Connecting them shows a major risk of aidwashing - which all humanitarian actors shall denounce and address.

Where are we at, now?

Israel  'cleared' and took control of Gaza starting from the North. Through extensive bombing and destruction, it progressively pushed people towards Rafah, at the southern end of the strip. Only a few residents remain in Gaza City, isolated and facing starvation. Aid has been blocked for months, except for recent airdrops and a convoy by the UN (more on this to follow). 

According to International Law, Israel, the occupying power should provide for the civilians under its control. Yet it used starvation as a weapon of war, a strategy now openly acknowledged even by high-ranking Western politicians.

Israel is determined to proceed with its invasion and to attack Rafah, even against the will of the international community. The US and the EU are well aware that it would be a carnage. Rafah is densely populated, and it hosts displaced people from all across the strip. Israel going ahead with its war plans anyway. Early ideas of displacing people into Sinai now seem untenable: massive forced displacement out of Gaza challenges Egypt and is resisted even by the closest allies. Israel is now planning 'humanitarian islands' in territory already "cleared” northeast of Rafah where to, once again, forcibly displaced people.

What are the current obstacles to the delivery of aid?

First, starvation is manmade.  Aid challenges are also man-made: Gaza is not an impenetrable jungle but a small, flat land. Despite the destruction, there are no significant logistical or practical obstacles to the movement of goods: nothing that experienced humanitarian organisations couldn't tackle. The main obstacle is clear: permission from Israel, which has insofar bombarded people and essential services, and then blocked aid in many ways:

• Mostly, aid is blocked at the border: despite sharing most borders of Gaza, Israel does not bring in / allow aid from its territory, with rare exceptions. The primary route then is through the south, from Egypt. Israel, as an occupying power, retains control also of this border and blocks aid with long inspections and denial of access. The extent of Israel blockages is well known and documented, refer for example to the recent report by Oxfam.
• Aid is blocked en route: even when cleared to go, the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) stopped and turned away convoys at its checkpoints
• Convoys shot at: in some instances, permitted convoys were shot at by IDF.
• Shooting people at distribution points: Individuals awaiting aid have been targeted by the IDF. The 'flour massacre' was the worst case, but it is part of a pattern.
• The very infrastructure for aid delivery is under attack, as Israel targeted and bombed distribution centres and basic services facilities. It also prompted allies to dismantle and definance UNRWA

One might wonder about insecurity - which Israel often claims is a main obstacle for aid delivery. Yes, there have been "lootings", but explainable with the artificial scarcity of aid and perfectly manageable by aid agencies. Interestingly, the same week Open Arms / World Central Kitchen unloaded their cargo, the UN successfully negotiated a pilot mission departing from Israel. Gaza police provided security to a small convoy that reached successfully the north for the first time in months, proving that - despite the disruption and need - it is still possible to manage aid. Guess what: just a couple of days later, after featuring this mission as a success in its propaganda, Israel targeted and killed the head of the police unit that oversaw the operation and guaranteed safety.

Is the maritime corridor the most efficient way in?

Of course, it is not. Months of supplies are stuck at the Egyptian border. Aid is very close to the delivery points. Capable humanitarians are ready to go. Aid could be provided literally in a few hours. But it's blocked. Worth also remembering that for nearly 20 years Gaza had no access by sea, and only 3 of its many checkpoints were functioning. Land has always been the only way in.

If Israel did not trust the Egypt land corridor, it could still allow aid through the many checkpoints in its territory, retaining full control from procurement to delivery. This is not happening, even if Israeli activists showed how easy it would be.

So we are led to believe that shipping aid by sea - two days from Cyprus towards a place where all ports have been destroyed - is convenient. Building a port will take a couple of months and in the meantime, the rubble of destroyed buildings, possibly mixed with human remains, was used to build a temporary pier. Well, one would hope that - in two months – the humanitarian crisis could be over… So, maybe this is just an excuse for a long-term setup?

Will the maritime corridor at least ensure more control by third parties?

Not at all. Israel remains in control, as it has for the past two decades, blocking all naval traffic to Gaza. Do you remember how attempts by militant civil society to break the siege with the Flotilla in 2010 were terminated in bloodshed? Israel's control was so tight that even fishermen had their movements limited and livelihoods curtailed. Even today, starving people cannot go fishing because Israel bombs them. So, rest assured: if the corridor is on/off depends on Israel's will.

The deal is that Israel will check the goods on departure (in EU territory) and on arrival (in Palestinian territory). So, the West is allowing Israel to establish its control in Cyprus - giving away rather than augmenting territorial control.

Ah. Neither the port nor the corridor are likely to be controlled by any Palestinian entity, of course. They will be an infrastructure of control, not of development. 

So, what is good about the corridor?

The corridor is not good news for humanitarians. It should be clear that it simply makes aid more costly, without gaining any control. It is, at best, a distraction. At worst, deception.

For Israel and its allies, the corridor represents an opportunity. It will be a beachhead from Israel to the Palestinian shore, and an opportunity to claim the strip of land that connects the new port. This strip of land has been already cleared and a road built on it.

Segmenting the strip with land under the direct control of Israel is functional to the occupation, reverting Gaza to the Bantustan model already used in the West Bank. There, small Palestinian enclaves are contained with territory controlled by the occupying power. Settlers are ready to get in and fill the space. This approach essentially enforces apartheid.

Moreover:

• Israel is already claiming and selling offshore gas reserves falling within the maritime borders of Gaza. Placing an Israel / EU-controlled port in front of them is quite convenient

• The Gaza shore is also the best location where the planned Ben Gurion Canal could lead out. This canal is an alternative to Suez allowing traffic from the Red Sea to reach the Mediterranean bypassing Egypt.  

While outright occupation of Gaza is a no-go (the US has warned Israel against "reoccupying Gaza" since the start of the war), a de facto and pragmatic control would probably be tolerated. Remember, Israel has many years of experience in occupation, during which it has gradually eroded Palestinian rights and land. This capacity of Israel to seamlessly and strategically capture new ground, little by little, is well documented. The current situation in Gaza is a perfect opportunity. Take a map, study it, look at the history of the occupation, and then assess whether the maritime corridor is such an innocent and beneficial idea

Several governments had already put their face on the airdrops (by the way, a lot of the criticism that applies to them also applies to the corridor). Someone else must then put its face on the still frail maritime corridor. Remember that, despite what is projected, the voyage of OpenArms/WCK is not the sudden and inspired action of brave humanitarians trying to force the blockade. It has been planned for months, as part of a larger political deal involving Western and Arab partners. Within this Open Arms/WFC are little pawns, and they were allowed to be the first ship entering Gaza from abroad in two decades. They got this honour, but they also:

• become instrumental in propaganda. Israel is very happy to show how they are allowing food in to cover up the abuses inflicted on the people in Gaza and continue starvation at a large scale.

• contribute to the misrepresentation of the UN and large NGOs, already under attack by Israel. After having killed their staff, bombed their premises, and blocked their aid - why not also portray them as less efficient in delivering aid than other small, agile organizations? This would be instrumental to politically motivated attempts by Israel to substitute them.

And, in the long term, the corridor is instrumental to:

• contribute to sealing the entry with Egypt and allow Israel to better control the Philadephi corridor (the strip separating Egypt and Gaza);
• expand the occupation infrastructure. And, alongside consolidating the IDF presence, it will allow the foreign troops that promised "not to set boots on Gaza" to operate from a floating pier nearby;
• prepare for the bombing of Rafah by bringing attractive aid closer to the "humanitarian island";
• potentially provide a safe corridor for "refugees" – encouraging the eviction of Palestinians from Gaza.

Some would say that the maritime corridor is a welcome additional option to maximise the delivery of food. But heavy investment in this route raises suspicions for several reasons: 1) Gaza had no sea access for two decades, yet no urgent effort was ever made to address this 2) land routes can already function much more effectively, and require no such backup 3) the maritime corridor can be at best a complement, never a substitution - contrary to the current push to give visibility to the corridor whilst curtailing land access. It is then legitimate to check if "humanitarian needs" might be covering less genuine motives.

The desire to feed the people, save the world, and, in the process, gain a bit of glory, visibility, and donations is understandable. It is of course great to see that more food is reaching the north. But too many times in the history of humanitarian aid "good intentions" had consequences. 

In short, from the point of view of the occupying forces things go well: we bomb Gaza and destroy the humanitarian infrastructure; we starve them; we delegitimize the Humanitarian system in every way; we build the port; we continue to keep everything closed by land; we launch a nice aidwashing campaign; we take total control of North Gaza, of the sea traffic and offshore resources, we also raze Rafah to the ground and we set foot in Cyprus too. 

Things are not going as well on the humanitarian front. The Gaza crisis is already redefining humanitarianism. So many red lines on humanitarian law were crossed, and principles trashed. And too many people had looked at this in silence. 

There are immense interests at play, and politics and aid are increasingly hard to disentangle. Aidwashing is a serious threat. Extreme care should be used by humanitarian organizations to operate in this extremely complex and sensitive context to avoid further eroding an already frail humanitarian fabric and/or strengthening oppression.

We need to hold on to our principles, we need integrity, we need insight. Naively celebrating and sailing across the maritime corridor might not help.