The air and sea are in the service of the conflict, not its end

Humanitarian aid packages land by parachute after being dropped from a plane, while Palestinians wait to receive them in Gaza City (Anatolia)

Suddenly we are witnessing an awakening of Western and Arab conscience.

Five months and more of ongoing genocide without any real initiatives to save civilians.

The Rafah crossing continues to be closed without any justification, and what enters through the crossing on a daily basis is almost negligible.

This war was also characterized by the connection of humanitarian aid with political negotiations and field developments, in clear violation of the principles of international humanitarian law, which require avoiding the use of civilians and their humanitarian needs as means of war.

Major countries, led by the United States, came together to carry out airdrops to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza.

People may agree or disagree about the importance of these landings and their spectacle and moral goals.

Moral and political collapse

Without diminishing the value and right of things, every food box and bag of flour that is dropped in any way on the hungry people in Gaza is an acceptable and good thing, and must be received, without our right to criticize and accept it together forming a contradiction in any way.

The major countries and nearby countries have greater responsibilities than that.

It is its responsibility to oblige the criminal army that caused the tragedy to abide by the rules and laws of war first and foremost.

However, the issue today is not to criticize or praise the revelations.

And not in giving lectures to these countries about their responsibilities, as the war and its humanitarian cost have gone beyond such talk, as the world watches a live broadcast of the moral and political collapse, and forms its convictions again accordingly, about the international system, and the positions of the West in particular, and the true values ​​it holds for the lower second world.

Here we must remember that partnership in any humanitarian effort, with or without Israeli approval, in coordination or without, in partnership with aircraft that carried ammunition and missiles for the Israeli army, or in unilateral efforts, are efforts that we have no choice but to accept, and to say good or bad, depending on each. Actor and his role.

The issue today is the insistence of international and regional actors to abandon the best, easiest and natural solution in order to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, which is the opening of the Rafah crossing.

The gate, in front of which thousands of trucks loaded with humanitarian aid are piled up, and entry is prohibited except in narrow spaces that do not fill the breath.

Today, an American-Emirati plan is being proposed to establish a floating port.

With the aim of opening a humanitarian line for the passage of aid across the sea.

Diligent thinking and experimenting with naval and air options in order to deal with the scene and bypass the Rafah crossing is in itself an international and regional signal to the occupation to move forward towards the Rafah attack, which will require a complete disruption of the crossing.

Because of the brutal military actions that will accompany this attack.

The world continues to shock us with its ability to keep up with the massacre and be morally consistent with its developments.

The leaders of major countries have a superior ability to adapt political statements and platform speeches in order to cover this brutal entity and its crimes.

Capacity is exceptional, of course, when it comes from bastions of “democracy and human rights.”

New convictions

Bypassing the Rafah crossing in the efforts of active countries to find a solution to the human tragedy only indicates that international partnership in this tragedy is successful.

It doesn't matter if you throw away a ton or ten of food to cover up that partnership.

It will not be possible to understand more than 100 advanced weapons and ammunition deals to kill more than 30,000 civilians, children, and women, and then the same planes that carried the ammunition for the killer party will carry flour and sugar for the remaining relatives of the dead.

A scene steeped in surrealism and contradiction.

Especially when Biden denies the massacre in the first months, then acknowledges it today for the sake of his electoral calculations.

In any case, the floating port may not only be linked to the expected Rafah attack, a cover for it by the major powers, and a surrender to its extent by the powerless countries.

Rather, it may be one of the formations of the post-war period, and the search for practical alternatives in managing the sector directly in coordination with Israel alone, which may explain in some way Israel’s approval of the sea corridor project without the land.

Such a project may also raise questions about the actors, and the latent desires of some of them, perhaps regarding Gaza’s proven gas, which requires political stability before it becomes an investment feasibility.

Here it is necessary to pay attention to the potential actors in this project, and consider their record and positions that give humans, the ordinary as well as the political, the ability to judge intentions.

The seaport also appears to be part of new convictions forming in the West about getting more involved in the post-war Gaza file.

And a corresponding conviction that the way in which the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip was managed through the Rafah Gate may seem useless for the next stage.

This means that the exclusive regional power of attorney for a specific party will need to be reconsidered in the next stage, or perhaps expanded to include temporary geopolitical roles involving parties that have no geographical connection to Gaza.

The idea of ​​the seaport still needs a deeper evaluation, which will become clearer with the start of work on the port.

From Western statements - especially issued by the European Union, regarding the floating port - the idea appears to be in the experimental stage, meaning that the feasibility of the port during the war may be linked to a sustainable idea later on.

Naturally, no Western thinking in the Gaza Strip will be freed from the complex of what is called “Israel’s security,” and there will be no possibilities for developing rosy and dreamy ideas for the people of Gaza, as long as its sponsors are haunted by that complex.

This is only in comparison to the experiences of history, and the West’s involvement in the Palestinian file, which was and still is based on protecting Israel, with its violations and crimes, from every harm that could befall it.

Within these ideas that are developing today in the context of the war and its post-war possibilities, the Palestinian actor is still absent and not included in the playing field.

Whether what may remain of a Palestinian administration in Gaza, or any roles for the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, which appears in the audience stands, while we see other Palestinian actors sitting on the bench waiting for their opportunity.

An upcoming scene

In this context, the bench seems to be of great importance today, and perhaps part of the outcome of the upcoming scene, especially when some of the preppers and dreamers have long been associated with the Gaza Authority specifically, with the regional player most involved in the seaport project.

There is, at the moment, no hopes for an international political mind capable of developing rational ideas for a major and final settlement;

Taking advantage of the world's most horrifying event of the 21st century.

All wills continue to collide with right-wing Israeli extremism, which seems to care less about the ally than the enemy, and is governed by an ideological isolation that necessarily impedes the ability to think politically.

This may drag the scene into new cycles of conflict.

Therefore, international parties seem willing to engage in conflict management, as well as ending it, a role in which the United States and the European Union now have great capabilities, given their inability to decisively engage in a number of conflicts in the last two decades, since the occupation of Iraq in 2003.

Until we witness an upcoming spiral of conflict and a new massacre, the port will be one of the ideas that serve to manage the conflict, but reflect the inability to end it.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.