President Biden’s decision to order the construction of a temporary pier to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza earlier this year has sparked controversy and debate within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). According to a recent USAID inspector general report, some staffers expressed concerns about the feasibility of the project and its potential impact on efforts to persuade Israel to open more efficient land crossings for aid delivery.
The $230 million military-run project, known as the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore system (JLOTS), was intended to operate for about 20 days to provide aid to the Palestinian territory besieged by conflict between Israel and Hamas. President Biden announced plans to use the temporary pier in his State of the Union address in March, highlighting the urgent need to deliver aid to the struggling population in Gaza.
However, the mission faced numerous challenges, including weather and security issues that limited the amount of food and emergency supplies that could be transported to Gaza. Aid groups eventually withdrew from the project in July, bringing an end to a mission plagued by logistical difficulties.
Despite concerns raised by USAID staff about the focus on using JLOTS instead of advocating for the opening of land crossings, the agency’s priority shifted to making the best use of the temporary pier as per the President’s directive. The goal was to expedite aid delivery to Gaza, where the majority of the population was facing severe food shortages and the threat of starvation.
The U.S. sea route and pier were expected to provide food for 1.5 million people in Gaza for 90 days, but fell short of that target. The project managed to feed approximately 450,000 people for a month before being shut down due to ongoing challenges with weather and operational issues.
Critics pointed out that the pier suffered repeated damage from high waves and bad weather, further complicating the aid delivery process. The U.N. World Food Program also raised concerns about the project’s neutrality and independence after an Israeli rescue operation took place near the pier, potentially compromising the agency’s impartiality in the conflict.
In response to these criticisms, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett defended the project, stating that it had a significant impact on delivering food to vulnerable Palestinian civilians despite the obstacles faced. He emphasized the urgency of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the U.S. government’s commitment to providing aid through all available means.
However, the watchdog report highlighted additional concerns about the U.S. government’s failure to fulfill commitments made to the World Food Program regarding the distribution of supplies from the pier. The report alleged that the U.S. did not adhere to the conditions set by the WFP, including the location of the pier in north Gaza and the provision of security by a U.N. member nation to ensure neutrality.
Instead, the Pentagon placed the pier in central Gaza, prompting criticism from WFP staff who believed that the decision was influenced by security concerns rather than humanitarian considerations. Eventually, Israel’s military stepped in to provide security for the pier after a neutral country could not be found to fulfill that role, raising questions about the project’s adherence to international humanitarian standards.
Overall, the construction and operation of the temporary pier for aid delivery to Gaza have sparked debate and scrutiny within the U.S. government and the international community. While the project aimed to address the urgent humanitarian needs of the population in Gaza, its implementation and outcomes have raised questions about the effectiveness and neutrality of aid delivery efforts in conflict-affected areas.
