Staff Reports
Biden’s plans to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza by constructing a temporary pier have turned into one colossal flop, showcasing yet again how grand intentions can spiral into logistical nightmares. This effort, dubbed the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore system (JLOTS), was unveiled during his State of the Union address back in March. Those who envisioned this temporary pier as some kind of miracle solution for the humanitarian crisis quickly found themselves swimming against the tide.
First, let’s talk about the staggering price tag of $230 million for a project that only operated for about 20 days. That’s right, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars for two weeks of shaky logistics. As the sun set on this ill-fated venture, it turned out that aid groups had already pulled the plug on the project by July, citing a series of weather-related setbacks and security concerns. This resulted in paltry supplies reaching the Palestinians, leaving many hungry people looking at a pier that seemed more like a floating mirage than a lifeline.
Biden pushed Gaza pier over warnings it would undercut other aid routes, watchdog says https://t.co/l3V9OLntGY
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) August 28, 2024
Meanwhile, concerns from within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) were ringing alarm bells before the first wave even hit the shores. Staff members warned that focusing on this makeshift pier would undercut efforts to negotiate more efficient land crossings—those tried-and-true methods that have been effective in moving food quickly and securely into Gaza. Yet, once Biden had his heart set on JLOTS, the USAID team was ordered to roll with it, abandoning common sense for an over-engineered solution that barely floated.
As the United Nations reported that Gaza’s 2.3 million residents were struggling to find food, the Biden administration was boasting about how this pier would provide for 1.5 million people over 90 days. In an ironic twist, this ambitious goal ended with reality striking hard—only enough food was delivered to sustain about 450,000 for a mere month. What happened to the other millions who needed help? They were likely left in line, staring at a temporary structure that didn’t live up to its promise.
To cap off this saga, the security for the project turned into a comedy of errors. Despite pledges to secure a neutral country to guard the floating pier, the Pentagon instead had to rely on Israel’s military to step in after no one else was available to play nice. The report from the watchdog revealed that the pier was more about military necessity than humanitarian aid, effectively serving as a straightforward example of why a transparent approach is essential when dealing with such sensitive situations.
And while the National Security Council spokesperson claimed that this venture “had a real impact,” it’s hard to take that seriously when the project was subject to high waves and bad weather—extremely fitting metaphors for the administration’s chaotic handling of foreign policy. The only bottom line here is that when left to wilt under the weight of poor planning and over-ambition, even a temporary pier becomes a monument to failed intentions.
