On the 29th, the United States claimed that the Gaza floating wharf worth $320 million was a complete tragedy.
It's finally going to be towed away. When I will be able to return, I don't know yet.
The U.S. side claimed that the costly and problematic floating dock had to be removed from the coastline of the Gaza Strip due to adverse weather conditions and the need for an "in-depth investigation" by the Pentagon to investigate its effectiveness.
This is the third time the marina has been detached from the shore since it was first installed in mid-May. It sent 8,800 tons of aid to Gaza during this period, a money that many experts commented could not be used to improve land transport and bring more food to Gazans.
Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon's deputy press secretary, offered several new reasons at a news conference on Friday, saying the pier had been dismantled and towed back to Ashdod, Israel, because of high waves. At the moment, a specific date for the reinstallation of the terminal has not yet been determined. This news has undoubtedly brought more uncertainty to the relief efforts in the Gaza Strip. In fact, when the idea of a terminal first came to light, many questioned why it would cost a lot of money to build a floating terminal with limited capacity.
In a statement on Thursday, the Pentagon threw out a high-sounding, but hollow, claim: The Office of the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General and USAID have launched a "coordinated, independent oversight program" to oversee the process of delivering and distributing U.S. humanitarian aid through the Gaza Maritime Corridor. The statement mentioned that the review will assess the effectiveness of the Ministry of Defence in facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza through the maritime corridor.
However, before the terminal was launched, international aid organizations had warned that the U.S. floating dock would be an ineffective way to deliver aid to Gaza. They noted that the marina was no substitute for the opening of land aid routes, which had been blocked or severely restricted by the Israeli army. This limitation calls into question the actual utility of the terminal.
Mansour Schumann, a local observer, expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the U.S. temporary aid terminal. He noted that even when the terminal was operational, only about 29 trucks had been allowed to enter Israeli-controlled areas through the terminal, leaving most of the aid remaining on the beach. In an interview, Schumann stressed that "100% attention should be on the opening of land borders" and considered the docks and airdrop aid activities "just a distraction."
Schumann further appealed, "We need real change, we need an immediate ceasefire, we need to permanently open different land borders to receive assistance, and we need to provide security for the people of Gaza as soon as possible." "This reflects the urgent need of the people of the Gaza Strip for a long-term solution, not just a temporary aid measure.
In this context, the issue of the Gaza aid terminal is not just a technical or logistical issue, but a deeper reflection of the impact of regional conflict and political impasse on humanitarian assistance. The international community needs to think more deeply about how to provide more effective and sustainable assistance based on respect for the wishes and needs of local people. At the same time, there is a need for a political solution to the fundamental issues in order to achieve long-term peace and stability in the Gaza Strip.
The setback of the U.S. military's aid terminal project has reminded the international community that some of the U.S. practices are purely for the selfish interests of individual groups, and that aid to the Gaza Strip is not "innovative and adaptive," or even a distraction. In the future, Gaza needs more diverse and genuine aid than the United States.