In another circumstance, the construction of a temporary pier to provide food and other goods to the Gaza strip could be seen as a triumph of American logistical power and humanitarian impulse - a massive structure built where no natural harbor exists, capable of delivering hundreds of thousands of pounds of food a day to a population desperately in need of it, completed with very little support from those on land. Despite the rough seas that have periodically paused the arrival of shipments, the pier has facilitated the arrival of over 13 million pounds of supplies, according to the US military.
But in the present circumstances, it instead stands as a symbol of America’s inability or unwillingness - depending on whom you ask - to secure a peace in Gaza. Millions of pounds of food are on the ground, but they are not being distributed - the UN World Food Program, which is charged with distributing the food once it arrives, has halted operations for a security review, following an Israeli raid to free four hostages that left many Palestinians dead and created what the WFP describes as an unworkable security situation. There is cause for blame in multiple directions - Israel, for utilizing unmarked vehicles in their military operation, or for generally failing to prevent the loss of civilian lives during the battle; the UN’s Francesca Albanese for spreading misinformation about Israel using marked aid trucks in the raid, and of course Hamas for holding civilian hostages in civilian homes.
The security collapse around the raid, however, is only an acute symptom of the problem - Gaza is not safe for anyone because there is no securing authority, and this state of affairs persists because Israel has shattered what apparatus there was and has not allowed a replacement to come into being because it continues to reject the possibility of a Palestinian state.
State formation was a frequent topic among early political philosophers, and while their anthropological methodology could certainly stand some critique, most came to the defensible conclusion that states exist primarily for purpose of securing their citizens against internal or external threats. John Locke, for example, speaks compellingly of the original equality of men in a state of Nature, but finally notes that
“Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of Nature, being but in an ill condition while they remain in it are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government”
The contours of what it means to be a state of course will differ tremendously between societies - will those laws be written? Will they be enforced by professional police? But Locke is fundamentally correct that one way or another societies naturally form a set of rules for themselves that govern their members, and at least limiting violence to predictable channels, if not securing absolute peace, is a major goal of doing so.
In Gaza, we are seeing an example of what happens when the formation of a state or any substitute to one is forcibly prevented. Israel claims to have killed over 10,000 Hamas militants - presumably referring to those who were armed and at least somewhat trained for violent conflict. Even if we assume the true number to be some fraction lower, this represent the functional disestablishment of the state’s security apparatus in many locations. Add to that the many Hamas bureaucrats and other functionaries that have been killed or prevented from doing their jobs by incessant airstrikes, and it’s obvious that, though it persist as a force capable of launching a few rockets here or striking the Israeli army in a limited way, there is functionally no state in Gaza.
And there is no obvious replacement state or party able to fill the gap. Israel certainly doesn’t want to do it - as the US has seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking responsibility for security exposes soldiers of an occupying force to tremendous danger from insurgents and guerillas. Individual organizations may attempt to arrange their own security - but the Israeli forces have shown that no aid organization is safe from its aerial bombardment, and the deaths of seven World Central Kitchen employees, including their security personal, indicates that private security is not safe to operate in the enclave. However, Israel also won’t let anyone else do so, at least not officially. The Palestinian Authority, for example, could potentially provide security to food deliveries. However, when a new security force was needed to staff the Rafah border crossing, Israel insisting that the PA could fill the role only if they did not do so officially.
Combined with what can only be described as the incandescent rage of the Israeli government at a recent US General Assembly resolution granting additional status to Palestine and at the increasing number of countries recognizing Palestinian statehood, this incident makes clear that the top priority for the Israeli government currently is the prevention of a Palestinian state in Gaza.
Locke describes the ‘protection of property’ as the primary motive for creating a state. However, it is clear that not just landed property and a market economy, but even the orderly distribution of food and other supplies requires at least a modicum of a state-like security and bureaucracy. Until that exists in Gaza, physically delivering truckloads or even shiploads of food isn’t going to stave off a humanitarian crisis - and for that to happen in Gaza, Israel needs to lift its objection to a state ever emerging in the territory. And the US needs to apply whatever leverage it has to making that happen - first, by ceasing the practice of covering for Israel in the UN Security Council on the question of official Palestinian statehood, and second, by making it clear that Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence that he has a perpetual right to order military operations in Gaza is unacceptable. A floating pier delivering food should be a step in the right direction, but it cannot even approach reaching its humanitarian potential without taking these other steps.