Rafah Crossing: False American Understandings and Israeli Conditions to Perpetuate the Siege and Starve Gaza

Let it be clear that Israeli threats against Gaza will not stop, regardless of any “ceasefire agreement.” Genocide has become the daily reality, and the racist colonial settlement occupation sees the continuation of suffering and siege as the new old normal. This reality must be viewed and dealt with as the product of a systematic policy, because we are facing a society of perpetrators of genocide, not just a fleeting political adversary.

The Rafah crossing is no longer just a border crossing point; it has become a blatant mirror reflecting the nature of the political partnership between Israel and the United States in managing the war on Gaza, not only in its military dimension but in its humanitarian, political, and economic essence. The issue is no longer about technical procedures or security arrangements, but about a policy based on producing and then obstructing promises, and marketing “understandings,” while the siege is effectively managed as a tool of collective punishment.

According to what was revealed by Israeli Army Radio, Israel and the United States reached a preliminary understanding last week to open the Rafah crossing in both directions. However, this understanding, like other previous understandings, did not go beyond media statements, as Israel quickly drowned it with a series of conditions, restrictions, and renewed “security” pretexts, while preparing to hold a meeting of the Ministerial Committee for National Security Affairs (the Cabinet) to “decide the fate” of the crossing. This reflects the occupation's mentality, which views crossings as tools for control and blackmail, not as lifelines for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

This scene cannot be separated from the American role, which has not been a mediator or guarantor, but a full political partner. The United States merely produces vague understandings that are later used to whitewash the occupation's image before international public opinion, without any binding mechanisms or actual pressure. Thus, “American understandings” become a political cover for deliberate Israeli obstruction, while the essence remains the same: keeping Gaza under siege, and managing the catastrophe instead of ending it.

More dangerously, the complicity extends to the post-war phase, where the “second phase” is promoted, promises of reconstruction are launched, and new maps for Gaza are drawn under humanitarian and developmental slogans. However, these promises are made completely disregarding people's rights, and their right to land and to determine the shape of their cities and their future.

What is marketed as a reconstruction project is gradually revealed as a political-economic scheme, in which land ownership is confiscated under pretexts of “organization,” “security,” and “modern planning,” and rebuilding is done according to investment priorities that serve American economic interests and its partners, not the needs of the afflicted residents of Gaza. Thus, genocide and destruction are transformed into an economic opportunity, and the siege is completed with plans to rearrange the place and the people, in one of the most dangerous forms of contemporary colonialism.

In light of these joint policies, a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding within Gaza City, where the city is suffering from a severe water crisis with its cutoff for the eighth consecutive day. According to the Gaza municipality, more than 85% of the city's area does not receive water, putting hundreds of thousands of civilians at direct health risk, and confirming that the قطع of basic services is not a side effect of the war, but part of a systematic strangulation strategy.

In parallel with this catastrophic reality, statements by Dr. Ali Shaat, head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, are multiplying regarding the introduction of shelter caravans, the opening of crossings, and the improvement of humanitarian conditions. Despite the reassuring nature of these statements, they clash with the wall of Israeli restrictions supported by the US, and the absence of any real implementation guarantees. Thus, promises turn into tools to buy time and absorb anger, while the residents of Gaza are left to face thirst, hunger, and the collapse of basic services.

In conclusion, what is happening at the Rafah crossing is not a failure of coordination, but a success of a joint policy based on keeping Gaza in a state of permanent suffocation. Israel imposes conditions, the United States provides cover, and the international community merely observes. As for the price, it is paid by Palestinians alone: siege, starvation, land confiscation, and conditional reconstruction formulated outside their will and rights.

The Rafah crossing today is not only closed by gates, but closed by international political will. Its true opening begins by breaking the partnership of occupation and American cover, and restoring rights to the residents of Gaza, before humanity becomes merely a slogan circulated in the media.