Dr. Christos Hadjioannou

There are two critical premises that substantiate a damning conclusion about the “Amalthea Humanitarian Corridor,” aggressively promoted by the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kombos, and the President, Mr. Nikos Christodoulides (together with the U.S. and the UAE). These premises lead to the counterintuitive conclusion that “Amalthea” does precisely the opposite of what it claims to do: instead of positively impacting the survival of Palestinians, it exacerbates the existential threats against them and negatively affects their survival.

The reasoning is as follows: (1) “Amalthea” competes with the existing structures and network of UNRWA; (2) the survival of UNRWA is intrinsically linked to the survival of the Palestinians; therefore, (3) “Amalthea” constitutes a (disguised) existential attack on the Palestinians.

Amalthea Competes with UNRWA

“Amalthea” is not a Cypriot invention. It may have been brought to the forefront by Cyprus (though even this might not be accurate – it is quite possible that Netanyahu and/or Biden suggested the idea to Mr. Christodoulides). The concept of a maritime corridor was initially proposed and planned by Israel’s current Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, well before October 7, 2023 (some sources indicate this plan was over a decade in the making). This corridor aligns with various strategic objectives of Israel regarding the Palestinians, none of which advance Palestinian interests – quite the contrary. When the proposal resurfaced (regardless of the origin – the idea is of Israeli provenance), Israel had no reason to reject it.

The idea resurfaced during a period when Israel was under significant international pressure to increase the provision or at least the appearance of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The simplest, most functional, and logical solution would have been to allow the use of existing structures and networks. However, this would not only provide immediate, effective, and authentic humanitarian assistance but also revitalize the struggling UNRWA, which Israel is actively working to dismantle. Destroying UNRWA is a significant long-term goal for Israel. Recently, the Israeli military presented a plan for its complete eradication without proposing a network to replace it.

Israel allowed (or, as I hypothesize, instigated) the revival of the maritime corridor idea, outbidding other humanitarian organizations, such as the World Central Kitchen, by also involving some other UN agencies and sidelining UNRWA. You will not see any connection between UNRWA and the “Amalthea” corridor. (Why Israel has a problem with UNRWA specifically but not with other UN agencies is addressed below.) Not only Israel sidelined UNRWA, but the U.S. (by far its biggest funder) is simultaneously undermining it: in this context, Congress recently blocked UNRWA’s funding until March 2025 and is searching for alternative humanitarian aid networks.

Therefore, the logical question arises: why would Israel agree to provide humanitarian aid by sea but refuse to allow its distribution by land, which is much easier, faster, and more cost-effective? At least two reasons explain this: (1) Providing humanitarian aid through a maritime corridor is so slow in its development that it allows Israel, on the one hand, to present something at the International Court of Justice, while simultaneously allowing time for hunger and suffering (caused by Israel itself) to do its criminal work. And (2) it excludes UNRWA. The latter is not just a current issue but part of a long-term plan for Gaza and the Palestinian people.

“Amalthea” competes with the existing UNRWA network, and for this reason, several humanitarian organizations, states, and the EU’s High Representative, Josep Borrell, have opposed its establishment. Despite Mr. Kombos’ claims that “Amalthea” is not competing with existing networks but is complementary, this is not true. Ultimately, this will be evident in practice and by how Israelis will use “Amalthea” against UNRWA. However, one could ask Mr. Kombos this simple question: if the “Amalthea” corridor is not competitive with existing networks, then why not propose the inclusion of UNRWA?

According to experts, it is impossible for “Amalthea” to replace ground-based humanitarian aid. But let’s assume a high-quality maritime network is soon created that links on the ground with a new, large, and efficient network similar to UNRWA’s, supporting the Palestinian people. This new organization would lack something critical that UNRWA offers, which is inseparable from the existence and well-being of Palestinians.

The Survival of UNRWA is Inextricably Linked to the Survival of Palestinians

Israel’s desire to dismantle UNRWA is not new – it is well-documented and widely known. These efforts have intensified in various ways and through multiple means after October 7. Israel’s push to destroy UNRWA is not merely related to its ties to Hamas and Israel’s effort to dismantle Hamas’ network, as Israel claims, but it also relates to UNRWA’s connections with the Palestinian people at large – relationships that go beyond or predate Hamas and address deeper Palestinian issues and the survival of the Palestinian people.

Indeed, if Israel dismantles UNRWA without finding a replacement network, the existence of Palestinians is immediately threatened. However, their existence is not threatened merely because UNRWA provides food, healthcare, and education. The existential stake is even higher. UNRWA is connected to the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees to the homes they were displaced from in 1948. UNRWA carries political significance as a witness to the Nakba and as a UN-mandated organization linked to the right of return. This explains why Israel does not object to other UN agencies being involved in “Amalthea” (such as the UN World Food Program, which participates in “Amalthea”) but is against UNRWA’s involvement.

Thus, even if UNRWA were replaced by an excellent new humanitarian aid network, this new network would sever the link between humanitarian work and refugee status, which raises international demands for the protection of these people, addresses their vulnerability and specific needs, and also safeguards the right of return. A new humanitarian network that detaches aid from refugee status increases the existential risks for the Palestinian people in the long term, despite the superficial appearance to the contrary.

The “Amalthea” Corridor is a (Disguised) Existential Threat to the Palestinians

The issue is clearly deeper and more complex than it is presented here in summary, and more than what a journalistic intervention like this allows. Nonetheless, even though empirical data volume may be needed to “lock” the truth of the conclusion, the reasoning presented, even if in outline, is valid. If indeed (1) “Amalthea” competes with the existing structures and network of UNRWA, and undermines UNRWA, and if (2) the survival of UNRWA is intrinsically linked to the survival of the Palestinians in a way that anything replacing it will be inferior to UNRWA, it follows that (3) “Amalthea” constitutes a (disguised) existential attack on the Palestinians. In my view, the reasoning is not only valid but also true.