On 6 May, 55 iNGOs sounded the alarm by releasing a letter calling for urgent action from the international community against Israel’s new registration rules for humanitarian organisations. These measures, introduced in March 2025 and set to take effect within six months, require all currently registered NGOs in the occupied Palestinian territories to either reapply or be expelled. Recent developments have made it clear that traditional responses to subversion of international law, consisting of diplomatic pressure, donor conditionality and advocacy campaigns, have repeatedly failed to halt the systematic erosion of humanitarian and civic space in occupied Palestine.
Oversight of this new iNGO regulation process has been entrusted to a new committee staffed by security and intelligence officials who lack basic understanding of international humanitarian law critical for such a position, eroding the neutrality and independence required of humanitarian action. Minister Amichai Chikli, leader of the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, justified the new measures as essential to prevent foreign entities from conducting what it describes as delegitimisation of Israel under the guise of humanitarian aid. However, the effect of such a procedure is unmistakably to criminalise core humanitarian principles and institutionalise a system of aid that is conditional on political alignment. This is a “comply or die” scenario that cannot be disguised despite the efforts to clothe it in legal rhetoric.
The new guidelines allow Israel to reject NGO registration if the organisation – or any of its employees – have supported or indirectly endorsed “anti-Israel propaganda”, ranging from supporting BDS, questioning Israel’s definition as a Jewish and democratic state, or backing international legal action against Israeli military or security personnel. If not clear enough, the guidelines also require the submission of complete personal identification data of staff, particularly Palestinian employees. In a context where over 300 Palestinian aid workers have been killed, this exposes staff to potential targeting, harassment, or worse. It also puts their families at risk. In sum, these new registration procedures impose impossible compliance measures based on a political litmus test of loyalty to Israel that is contrary to the very thread of neutrality that humanitarian aid organisations operate on. Its vague and unclear criteria of what constitutes “anti-Israel propaganda” present an ever-moving target that can shapeshift with changing circumstances.
Back in March, SARI Global released a list of anticipatory actions and triggers to look out for to prepare for likely and worst case scenarios in the coming months. We are now at a time where these need to be highlighted, and collective action needs to be taken to ensure that impartiality of aid remains sanctified under international humanitarian law. If not addressed, these tactics risk setting a global precedent for the politicisation of aid under the ever-elusive categorisation of national security.
For SARI Global’s most-likely case scenario of “heightened operational constraints with partial NGO compliance”, which is happening currently, the organisation provides a list of anticipatory actions needed to protect the sanctity of humanitarian aid organisations. The list proves basic and is a redundant parroting of the efforts that are already being coordinated globally. It is time to confront the limits of conventional solutions. The persistent calls for international condemnation, conditional aid and legal appeals have not prevented the steady advance of these restrictions. Under the worst-case scenario of “mass deregistration and collapse of international humanitarian operations”, of which Israel has meticulously laid the ground work for, SARI Global recommends that community-based organisations and local NGOs be supported with adequate resources and capacity-building responses for solutions to deliver aid on the ground.
A meaningful response requires acknowledging that the crisis is not just simply humanitarian, but fundamentally political. Any attempt to paint the situation as a matter of aid delivery alone, without addressing the underlying realities of occupation, blockade, and dispossession, signals political bankruptcy. In this new era, solidarity, not charity, must be the organising principle. The challenge is not only to demand access and protection for aid, but to reimagine resistance and support for Palestinian civil society as a form of global civic action. Our collective responsibility as a community is to mobilise emergency funding streams to support these alternative aid channels to fill in the gaps left behind by the aid vacuum. The financial efforts matter now more than ever.
We are facing a time where the civic space worldwide is shrinking and is being replaced with the criminalisation of solidarity and advocacy. Not only individuals, but entire humanitarian organisations whose job it is to remain impartial, are presented with the choice of either complying with illegal and unethical demands or risk losing their ability to deliver life-saving food, water, and medical care to prevent genocide and extermination of Palestinians. In this dystopian time when international law means no more than a warning label on a weapon of war, it falls on ordinary people to become the last line of defence for humanity.
Image by Lua Eva Blue, Creative Commons 3.0
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a skilled salesperson, though the product he peddles is deeply flawed. His current challenge is to convince himself, his people, the region, and the world that, despite significant setbacks, he is winning the strategic war against his adversaries.
Former Israeli national security officials, while employing different terminology, essentially convey the same conclusion. They describe Netanyahu as a “master tactician” but “not a master strategist,” as reported by CNN. In an article detailing one of Netanyahu’s grandiose, yet hollow, pronouncements of aspiring to control the Middle East, CNN’s headline declared that “The Endgame is unclear as ever.”
Netanyahu and his extremist allies are acting in defiance of reality. They either believe, or wish to believe, that the endgame is perfectly clear.
According to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Israel is operating under a grand military strategy, one that will culminate in “Syria being dismantled, Hezbollah being severely defeated, Iran being stripped of its nuclear threat, Gaza being cleansed of Hamas, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans being displaced to other countries.”
Smotrich’s extensive list, communicated at the end of April, concluded with Israel emerging “stronger and more prosperous.” This wish list aligns closely with a similar list presented by Netanyahu last March.
However, Netanyahu, desperate for immediate political capital, chose to boast about purported achievements rather than future goals. He claimed to have already brought his enemies to their knees and “destroyed the remnants of the Syrian army.”
This latter claim refers to Israel’s unilateral actions against Syria last December, a nation embroiled in internal strife and not actively engaged in war with Israel. In essence, Israel fabricated a major war front in the absence of actual conflict and declared itself the decisive victor.
Rarely do Israeli leaders publicly articulate their nation’s true intentions with such stark language. They often frame war, colonial expansion, and even genocide using terminology palatable to Western mainstream media and public: Israeli aggressions are portrayed as self-defense, and the construction of illegal settlements as self-preservation.
However, the political discourse emanating from Israel lately strikes a different tone. One might argue that Israel, ostracized by much of the world and led by individuals facing criminal charges, no longer feels compelled to conceal its genuine aims. This is incorrect, however, as Israel is now more than ever desperate to provide any rationale, however feeble, to justify its extermination of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Indeed, were Israel not concerned about accountability, it would not dedicate significant time and resources to defending itself in the world’s highest legal and criminal courts, nor would it issue travel warnings to its soldiers or conceal their identities for fear of prosecution.
Israel’s inflated political rhetoric and its pronouncements of imaginary achievements are a form of hype aimed at preserving its image as a powerful regional player capable of not only influencing political outcomes but fundamentally shaping the entire Middle East.
The irony of this hype is that Israel has been attempting, and failing at an unprecedented cost, to conquer Gaza, a devastated, tiny territory with a starving population still reeling from the impact of the ongoing Israeli genocide. Even venturing a few hundred meters into Rafah or Khan Yunis continues to result in deaths and injuries within the Israeli army, which is struggling to amass the necessary numbers for large-scale offensives within the Strip.
One must, however, distinguish between Israel’s intentions and its failure to realize them. Indeed, dominating the Middle East has been the formula driving Israel’s actions for decades. In fact, there is an official document that details Israel’s regional ambitions: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”
This document was prepared in 1996 by Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative intellectual and a close associate of Netanyahu, for the so-called Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. It aimed to guide Israel toward a more assertive policy that rejects the “comprehensive peace” notion, advocating for destabilizing the region and “rolling back” threats, specifically those emanating from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, among others.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 presented a golden opportunity for some of these goals to be achieved, though the ultimate outcome fell short of the overall objectives.
Humiliated by the failures of his army and intelligence throughout the Gaza war, and facing immense pressure from a deeply discontented public, Netanyahu knows that his legacy, which he had hoped would be remembered as the greatest among all Israeli leaders, will instead be marred by controversy and disgrace.
Thus, Netanyahu is re-engaging in Perle’s old strategy, though under entirely different circumstances. To “secure the realm” would imply that Israel is indeed in control, possesses incomparable military strength, and that its adversaries are willing to accept their diminished role in this Netanyahu-crafted Middle East.
But even a skilled salesman, or “great tactician,” cannot market genocide as a victory, nor can a disreputable and dysfunctional army secure a strategic triumph.
Israel has clearly failed to secure any genuine or lasting victory, and the obvious solution is for Israel to be reined in and held accountable for its crimes in Gaza and throughout Palestine. The Middle East would then be poised for true stability, peace, and even prosperity, free from Israeli scheming and the relentless pursuit of more war fronts and illusory victories.
No comments:
Post a Comment