Israel’s plan to involve the United States in the occupation of Gaza
For two months, Israel has prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, worsening what many already describe as a catastrophic situation. International aid organizations, which have been pushing for an end to the blockade, rejected Israel’s latest proposal this week. Under the plan, Israel’s cabinet announced it would indefinitely occupy Gaza and centralize aid distribution in select zones. Reports indicate that U.S.-based private security firms will be involved in distributing aid—fueling speculation that Donald Trump’s recent remarks about wanting to send aid to starving Gazans are linked to Israeli interests.
Trump, who had previously floated the idea of taking over Gaza, now appears to support a model that would financially benefit American firms. By bringing U.S. companies into its occupation and aid-distribution plan, Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be courting Trump’s backing.
A Ceasefire That Didn’t Hold
The three-phase ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas—secured under pressure from Trump and framed as a political gift to him—was short-lived. The first phase centered on a hostage exchange, while the second called for the Israeli army to withdraw from Gaza. But from the outset, it was clear the Netanyahu government had no intention of moving to the second phase. By continuously bombing Gaza and adding new conditions, Israel simultaneously bought time for its military and maintained pressure on Hamas. Its demand for Hamas’s unconditional surrender made its lack of commitment to a lasting ceasefire clear.
Despite Israel’s broader strategy, the temporary lull in violence allowed for some limited aid to enter Gaza. But by late February, after Israel insisted on the unconditional release of all hostages, the process stalled again—and for the past two months, no humanitarian aid has been allowed in. Aid groups have since intensified their pressure on Israel, warning of looming famine. The drone strike on a ship near Malta that aimed to break the Gaza blockade sent a clear message: Israel will not shy away from using force to fend off international pressure. Now, having torpedoed the ceasefire, Netanyahu’s government is trying to establish a model where all aid can only flow under Israeli control.
Turning Aid Into a Weapon
A joint statement from global humanitarian organizations criticized Israel’s plan to monopolize aid distribution, warning that it risks turning humanitarian aid into a weapon of war. Since Israel is an active party in the conflict, allowing it to control the flow of aid would make it impossible to deliver assistance in a neutral, impartial manner. If Israel is both the occupying power and the authority distributing aid, then the aid itself becomes part of the war effort—a tool to manipulate and pressure Gaza’s civilians.
This concern echoes the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Among the most serious charges is the use of starvation as a method of warfare—recognized under international law as a war crime.
In an article for Foreign Affairs, Boyd van Dijk notes that while the legal basis for prosecuting starvation as a war tactic exists, actual convictions are rare. The difficulty of proving intent, coupled with the long-standing normalization of siege tactics in warfare, makes such prosecutions hard to win. With Europe offering little political support for the ICC’s case, Israel appears relatively unconcerned about potential consequences. According to Dijk, the outcome of this case could be a defining moment for international law: a test of whether it still has teeth. States like South Africa and Türkiye have helped raise the case’s profile, but stronger political backing for the ICC is urgently needed.
U.S. Backing Remains Key
Despite mounting international pressure, Israel’s greatest source of protection remains Washington. Netanyahu, having already handed Trump a political “win” with the short-lived ceasefire, is now devising new ways to keep U.S. support on his side. The idea of involving American firms in aid distribution gives Trump a way to claim moral high ground—helping the people of Gaza while standing against Hamas.
Trump, who once spoke of clearing Palestinians out of Gaza and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” has recently gone quiet on that front. For now, he seems satisfied with the potential profits American companies could reap. But turning the U.S. into a partner in an open-ended Israeli occupation would ultimately conflict with Trump’s broader goal of pulling back from Middle East entanglements.
Relying on private contractors instead of U.S. troops might reduce political risk, but it still means embedding American interests—and obligations—on the ground. And that may be Netanyahu’s goal: to lock in long-term U.S. backing by entangling American firms in the Gaza occupation.
