Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has laid out his vision for a post-war Gaza but with zero involvement of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Gaza after the war. Under his plan, he envisages a “demilitarized’ Gaza, and Israel would control its security indefinitely. Under his plan, Israel would also maintain security control over the entire area west of Jordan from land, sea, and air.

Netanyahu has been under pressure at home and internationally to publish proposals for Gaza since he began his military operation. He is keen to restore a crumbling reputation as a leader who can keep Israel safe and curtailing any resistance from Palestinians brushing it under the rug simply as Hama’s military aggression.

Gaza at this point has arrived at the center of a new geopolitical tug of war as humanitarian aid initiatives by the US, United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Israel compete to reshape the post-war Strip.

Now when it comes to any humanitarian considerations, especially in a conflict zone, curtailing harm, and ensuring assistance to the victims are central to providing immediate relief, however at the same time aid workers and agencies worry that the provision of aid in conflict situations could also contribute to prolonged violence. Despite these qualms, humanitarian actors have determined that, in most of instances, the help their presence offers outweighs the harm inflicted.

In Gaza, international donors, such as governments, foundations, and individuals will likely be asked to share and carry the financial burden of repairing the damage caused by the Israeli forces but one also needs to understand that the destruction has been done at a very massive scale with a lot of complications to be followed in future.

Humanitarians will most likely participate in this rebuilding while also knowing that their response is almost certainly not going to be adequate to meet the current needs of Palestinians in Gaza considering the scale of the current carnage, both in loss of life (leading to charges of genocide) and in the destruction of public buildings and homes (named by some as homicide). However, the current circumstances indicate the fact that it can also shrink the donors’ willingness to repeatedly pick up the tab for rebuilding after destruction all the while knowing that buildings and lives are likely to be shattered again.

The past few months have produced dramatically new humanitarian problems in a territory that is long familiar with humanitarian crises. Starvation is now a widespread problem in Gaza. One of the first acts in Israel’s offensive against Gaza was to cut off access to food, water, and fuel. This total blockade has only been partially, and inadequately, ameliorated in the months since. The second most concerning issue is that the healthcare system has been utterly devastated.

Hospitals have been the most frequent targets of attack with not a single fully operational hospital in the Gaza Strip at the moment.

Lastly, Children are being victimized in remarkably high numbers: more than 12,000 have been killed, according to some estimates, and more than 1,000 have lost limbs. Along with that the far too many children who fall under the acronym WCNSF wounded child, no surviving family face additional challenges.

As they confront new levels and new forms of suffering in Gaza, humanitarian organizations will continue to face significant impediments to providing meaningful assistance to Gazans. The foremost challenge is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recently announced plan as he envisions a severely constrained future for the Gaza region. His call to dismantle the vitally important UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), presents a serious, long-term threat to humanitarian capacity. The second most concerning issue would be the securitization of aid delivery.

The Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, GRM, an agreement between the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Israeli government, and the United Nations privileged Israeli security concerns and maintained Israeli control over the entrance of goods to Gaza. Rebuilding did happen through this mechanism, but not enough to repair the damage of 2014 before the next round of violence in 2021. This threat of securitization of aid delivery is likely to be even greater in a future reconstruction system and the frustrations of organizations involved in supporting whatever rebuilding is permitted will probably be greater as well.

Displacement, both inside Gaza and potentially beyond it, is liable to pose a significant practical and ethical challenge for humanitarian actors.

Indefinitely squeezing Gaza’s 2.2 million people into an even smaller territory than the Gaza Strip would cause considerable long-term damage. Within Gaza, Israel has begun to create a depopulated buffer zone, demolishing buildings that it had not already destroyed, presumably to prohibit rebuilding and return.

The UN says at least 576,000 people in Gaza one-quarter of the population are one step away from famine. In the coming days, with the dictum of “lifeline to civilians” Open Arms, is going to be the first aid ship to set sail as part of a maritime corridor initiative by Cyprus, with the support of the European Union, the UK, and the US. The US has also launched a separate initiative which will see a military ship build a floating harbor off Gaza’s coast, including a temporary pier to transport supplies to the shore. Western and Arab countries have also been carrying out airdrops, mostly over northern Gaza. However, they are considered ineffective and costly.

According to the UN, in the first 10 days of March, an average of 162 lorries entered Gaza daily via the Egyptian-controlled Rafah and the Israeli-controlled Kerem Shalom crossings, the number however before the war were about 500 lorries, suitable for carrying up to 20 tons of material crossing into Gaza each day on average. Nonetheless, organizations working for humanitarian relief in the heavily destroyed Gaza Strip will undoubtedly feel that their imperative to save lives and ease suffering demands that they continue to participate in the cycles of destruction incomplete rebuilding devastation, and inadequate assistance unless and until a long-term concrete solution to the crises is not met.