Category World News

People in Gaza have been rushing to markets as supplies dwindle even further due to regional conflict.

Gaza City, Gaza Strip – As soon as the first US-Israeli attacks hit Iran on February 28, concerns began to surge in the Gaza Strip over how the latest conflict might affect a population already suffering from a genocidal war that has lasted for more than two years.

With tensions expanding across the region, the situation in Gaza has been growing increasingly complex. Israel has tightened its grip on the territory’s crossings, further restricting the entry of vital humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, violations of a “ceasefire” agreement reached with the Palestinian group Hamas in October continue unabated.

But as global focus turns to the unfolding regional war, many fear that Gaza will be relegated to a secondary issue – even as more than two million Palestinians in the besieged territory remain trapped in an extremely fragile humanitarian and political situation.

“The war with Iran has given Israel broader space to intensify its crimes in Gaza, while the humanitarian situation has deteriorated rapidly due to severe restrictions on the crossings,” Ramy Abdu, head of the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, told Al Jazeera.

Israel closed the crossings into the Strip on the first day of the war with Iran, disrupting the entry of trucks carrying humanitarian aid and essential supplies.

The move also halted the travel of patients and wounded people, prompting widespread concern as thousands of patients had been waiting to travel abroad for treatment after Israel’s war decimated Gaza’s healthcare system.

After several days of closure, Israel partially reopened the Kerem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing, allowing a limited number of trucks carrying aid and basic commodities to enter. The limited reopening, however, has had little impact, as the volume of aid entering Gaza remains far below the 600 trucks per day needed to cover the population’s needs.

Significant restrictions also remain in place on the entry of fuel and heavy machinery needed to remove rubble and restore vital infrastructure, making recovery efforts in the bombarded territory slow and complex.

Economic affairs specialist Mohammad Abu Jiyab said the US-Israel war on Iran has had a direct impact on Gaza’s economic and humanitarian conditions. He cited the decline of crossing operations and the reduction in imports of aid and commercial goods as a result of Israeli security decisions linked to the regional conflict.

“This has led to a sharp rise in prices and shortages of goods in the markets, along with a decline in the ability of international organisations to distribute humanitarian aid adequately to the population,” he added.

Abu Jiyab warned that the continuation of this situation would deepen the living and economic crises in the territory as supplies decline and residents struggle to secure their daily needs.

A spokesperson for the United Nations Children’s Fund said the prices of some basic commodities, including food and cleaning products, have risen dramatically, in some cases by 200 to 300 percent.

‘Ceasefire’ violations

Meanwhile, Israeli air attacks and artillery shelling on various parts of Gaza continue in violation of the October “ceasefire”.

Medical sources said six Palestinians, including two children, were killed and some 10 were wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza City and the Nuseirat refugee camp late on Sunday and early on Monday.

According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Israeli attacks since the start of the “ceasefire” have killed at least 648 people and wounded nearly 18,000.

Analysts say the shift in international attention has given Israel greater space to carry out limited military operations in Gaza without triggering major reactions.

Euro-Med Monitor’s Abdu warned that Israel continues to carry out what he described as “systematic acts of genocide” in Gaza, exploiting every opportunity to deepen conditions that make life increasingly impossible for an exhausted population faced with extremely harsh living conditions.

He also cautioned about growing fears of renewed famine and malnutrition, particularly among children. Abdu pointed to the rapid deterioration of health services amid shortages of medicines and medical equipment.

“Hospitals are shutting down or operating at minimal capacity due to shortages of fuel and medical supplies. Patients are increasingly unable to travel for treatment, and many are deprived of essential medicines,” he said.

Delaying the next phase of the ‘ceasefire’

Separately, Abdu highlighted Gaza’s political vacuum, noting that Israel continues to obstruct the work of a committee tasked with administering the territory and prevents its members from entering it.

The Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza was formed in January as a transitional civilian body comprising 15 technocrats as part of arrangements linked to the next phase of the “ceasefire” agreement.

Its mandate includes managing civil affairs and essential services in Gaza, coordinating the entry of humanitarian aid, restarting government institutions and overseeing recovery and reconstruction efforts.

The Rafah land crossing is a central issue linked to the committee’s work, but it has remained closed for the 10th consecutive day, further complicating the committee’s ability to carry out its tasks.

“It is clear that Israel is exploiting the world’s focus on the war with Iran to expand its repressive policies in Gaza at a time when international pressure and accountability are declining,” Abdu added, stressing that many of these measures are taking place even without active combat, as civilians are killed, homes destroyed and crossings restricted in ways that appear aimed at collective punishment and starvation.

The “ceasefire” agreement outlines a three-phase plan intended to gradually halt military operations, release prisoners and create conditions for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the start of the territory’s reconstruction.

In the first phase, the agreement envisioned a halt to military operations, a partial Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, and the entry of hundreds of aid and fuel trucks daily alongside prisoner exchanges.

However, implementation remained partial and limited from October through early 2026, as Israeli forces continued to maintain control over large parts of the territory and key crossings.

The second phase, scheduled to begin in January 2026, was supposed to include a broader Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the launch of reconstruction and the establishment of a transitional civilian administration.

Yet the phase quickly stalled due to political and security disagreements, as Israel introduced additional conditions related to the future governance of Gaza and the disarmament of armed factions.

Abu Jiyab, the economist, believes Israel is using the regional war to maintain instability in Gaza and keep the situation unchanged without any political progress.

“The clearest indication of this is the political neglect by the United States, the so-called Peace Council, and the mediating states regarding the rapid transfer of governance and enabling the administrative committee to manage the Gaza Strip,” he added.

This deadlock has directly affected the reconstruction process, which remains largely frozen since the entry of building materials, fuel and heavy equipment depends on Israeli approvals and complex crossing procedures.

As regional tensions intensified following the outbreak of the US-Israel war on Iran, observers say international momentum to push forward the second phase of the agreement has significantly weakened.

Political analyst Ahed Farwana believes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is exploiting the shift of global attention to “prolong the first phase of the agreement without moving to the second phase”.

He said, “The Israeli army continues to carry out strikes and assassinations, while restricting certain goods and allowing others under a policy of rationing, including fuel and cooking gas.”

With Israeli forces controlling about 60 percent of the Gaza Strip, Farwana believes Israel aims to keep the territory in a permanent state of instability.

Walid Khalidi, the venerated Palestinian historian whose research helped document the Nakba and shaped generations of scholarship on Palestine, has died aged 100.

Khalidi, dubbed “the historian of the Palestinian cause”, passed away on Sunday in Massachusetts in the United States, according to an obituary issued by the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) – the research centre that he co-founded in 1963.

Following the news, tributes from scholars, diplomats and Palestinian officials flooded social media, with Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, calling Khalidi “a national treasure, a guardian of memory, and a mentor to generations” in a post on X.

Born in Jerusalem in 1925 into a prominent intellectual family, Khalidi received his early education in Ramallah before attending St George’s School in Jerusalem.

He later graduated from the University of Oxford in 1951 and went on to enjoy an illustrious academic career, teaching political studies at the American University of Beirut until 1982, before becoming a research fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs.

Chronicling the Nakba

Khalidi was perhaps best known for his meticulous documentation of the destruction of Palestinian villages during the Nakba (“catastrophe”), the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias in 1948.

His landmark book All That Remains, published in 1992, catalogued how more than 400 Palestinian villages were destroyed or depopulated during the first Arab-Israeli war and combined historical research, maps and testimonies to reconstruct the lives of communities that had disappeared.

The IPS described Khalidi as a “pioneer in uncovering many long-concealed features that explained how the Zionist movement succeeded in occupying Palestine in 1948”, adding that in the 1960s, he was the first to reveal “its master plan for the occupation of Palestine and the expulsion of its people, known as ‘Plan Dalet’”.

Another major work by Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora, used archival photographs to document Palestinian society before 1948, offering a rare visual record of daily life in cities and villages across the country.

Academic and diplomatic roles

After a period teaching at Oxford, Khalidi spent decades at the American University of Beirut, and co-founded the Institute for Palestine Studies, which grew into one of the leading research organisations dedicated to Palestinian history, politics, and society.

Khalidi later served as a research fellow at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs, lectured at institutions including Princeton University in the US, and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Beyond academia, he also played a role in Palestinian diplomacy.

After the 1967 war, which later became known as the Naksa, in which Israel seized the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Syrian Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Khalidi moved towards diplomacy.

He served as an adviser to the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, later joined an Arab Summit delegation to the British government in 1983, and, in the mid-1980s, served as a special adviser to the Arab League secretary-general.

He was also part of the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace conference.

Khalidi was a proponent of a two-state solution, writing in Foreign Affairs in 1988 that a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in “peaceful coexistence alongside Israel” was “the only conceptual candidate for a historical compromise of this century-old conflict”.

Khalidi is ‘synonymous with his beloved homeland’

Tributes from Palestinian officials and scholars highlighted Khalidi’s role in shaping the historical understanding of Palestine.

Khalil Jahshan, the executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, said in a post on X  that Khalidi’s name was “synonymous with his beloved homeland, Palestine” as he offered  “heartfelt condolences to his family, to the people of Palestine, and to all who knew him”.

The Institute for Palestine Studies described Khalidi as one of the most prominent historians of Palestine and said his work helped build the foundation for modern scholarship on Palestine.

Jehad Abusalim, policy analyst and author of Light in Gaza, wrote on X that Khalidi had “dedicated his life to preserving Palestinian history”, adding that “his scholarship and research are a foundation that generations will continue to build on”.

For many historians, Khalidi’s legacy lies not only in his own scholarship, but also in the institutions he helped build and the generations of students and researchers he mentored.

At a time when much of Palestine’s historical record risked being scattered or lost, Khalidi devoted his career to documenting it.

A newly released video suggests a US Tomahawk missile likely struck an Iranian elementary girls’ school in Minab, killing 175 people, most of them children. The US had previously accused Iran of the attack.

As the US-Israel war on Iran continues to escalate, questions have been raised about how much it is costing Washington.

Late last week, two congressional sources told US broadcaster MS NOW that the war is costing the United States an estimated $1bn a day. A day later, Politico reported that US Republicans on Capitol Hill privately fear the Pentagon is spending close to $2bn a day on the war.

Congress’s House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference last week that President Donald Trump is “plunging America into another endless conflict in the Middle East” and “spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran”.

“But they can’t find a dime to make it more affordable for the American people to go see a doctor when they need one,” he said. “Can’t find a dime to make it easier for Americans who are working hard to purchase their first home. And they can’t find a dime to lower the grocery bills of the American people.”

Trump, who won the 2024 presidential election largely on promises to reduce the cost of living, has seen his popularity plummet. A Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted hours after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, sparking region-wide retaliation, now shows dismal approval for the war from the US public as well.

The Pentagon, the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, has not released an official estimate of the cost of the war yet, but the soaring costs are unlikely to go down well with voters, analysts say, months before the midterm elections.

To seek clarity on the actual cost of the war, Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, has asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyse the exact cost of the war.

As the Trump administration prepares to ask Congress for more money to fund the war this week, here’s what we know about how much the war is costing the US each day.

What has Boyle asked the CBO to do?

In a formal letter sent on March 5, Boyle asked the CBO to analyse “the operational, logistical, and sustainment costs of the war in Iran, including any additional direct or indirect costs associated with the use of military forces for this purpose”.

He also asked the CBO to estimate “other types of additional costs” that might be involved in the war with Iran, like “diplomatic operations and foreign aid costs”. Additionally, he wants the CBO to analyse “opportunity costs” such as how the cost of a US response to potential Chinese aggression would be affected by “moving an aircraft carrier from near Taiwan to off the coast of Iran”.

In his letter, Boyle said “the effect on prices from the economic disruption caused by the war in Iran” should be analysed.

“Please conduct this analysis under several scenarios, including scenarios of the war lasting longer than 4 to 5 weeks and deploying US troops on the ground in Iran,” he wrote.

How much is the war costing the US each day?

While the CBO has yet to release an analysis of the cost of the war, the US media have begun reporting estimates of how much Washington’s military campaign against Iran has cost the country so far. There have been varying estimates.

On Saturday, according to The New York Times, Pentagon officials told Congress that the first week of the war cost the US $6bn.

Earlier, on Thursday, two US congressional sources told MS NOW that the war with Iran is costing the US nearly $1bn a day. The next day, Politico reported that US Republicans privately feared the Pentagon was spending close to $2bn a day on the war.

Some of the equipment the US is using is extremely expensive, reports suggest. In particular, the US interceptor missiles being used to bring down Iranian missiles can cost millions of dollars for each one fired, analysts say.

Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), told Al Jazeera the war could cost the US $2bn per day in the early stages, but is unlikely to remain that high over the longer term.

“After the first few days, we think it is closer to $800m per day. But $2bn per day on a sustained basis seems very hard to believe, even with modern equipment that generally costs a bit more. Of course, these numbers could change if we get significant personnel build-up; right now, at most, that’s at least a few months away,” he said.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, agreed. “Bottom line, the war likely costs about $1bn per day, not $2bn, though spikes may reach that,” he said.

Why is the war costing the US so much?

A former British military official, who requested anonymity, told Al Jazeera that for the US, “having assets in the Middle East region besides permanent bases” has increased costs significantly.

Since early February, the US has amassed a vast array of military assets in the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran.

According to open-source intelligence analysts and military flight-tracking data, since early February, the US appears to have deployed more than 120 aircraft to the region – the largest surge in US airpower in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War.

The reported deployments include E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air superiority jets, alongside F-15s and F-16s. Flight-tracking data shows many departing bases in the US and Europe, supported by cargo aircraft and aerial refuelling tankers, a sign of sustained operational planning rather than routine rotations.

“Two carrier groups with information have said they [the US] will be sending more,” the military official said, adding that he is not certain if these additional military assets are being sent as a source of relief for the US or because Washington is increasing its presence for an overlapping time before the swap due to maintenance and resupply taking place.

What is the money being spent on?

In a report published on Thursday, an analysis by Washington-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said Washington had spent $3.7bn in its first 100 hours of the war alone, or nearly $900m a day, driven largely by the huge expenditure of munitions.

The CSIS researchers said their analysis drew on CBO estimates of the operations and support costs for each unit, adjusting for inflation and unit size, and adding 10 percent for costs of “a higher operational tempo”.

Their analysis found the US had expended more than 2,000 munitions of various types in the first 100 hours of the war, and estimated it would cost $3.1bn to replenish the munitions inventory on a like-for-like basis, with the costs increasing by $758.1m a day.

The former UK military official told Al Jazeera that the cost of one missile, including production, transport and manpower, is at least $2m.

CSIS researchers Mark Cancian and Chris Park said only a small amount of the estimated overall $3.7bn cost of the war in the first 100 hours was already budgeted for, while most of the costs – $3.5bn – were not.

The budgeted costs include “operational costs [approximately $196m, with $178m budgeted],” they said.

They noted that “munitions replacement [approximately $3.1bn]” has not yet been budgeted, and “replacing combat losses and repairing infrastructure damage [approximately $350m] is also unbudgeted”.

That meant the Pentagon will most probably have to request more funding in the near future to cover the unbudgeted costs, they said. This could prove a major political challenge for the Trump administration and provide “a focal point for opposition to the war”, they added.

Phillips said, “The big constraint isn’t money, it’s interceptor stockpiles.”

“The US can sustain the financial cost for years, but munition depletion could become a serious constraint within months of high-intensity operations.”

How much will the war cost the US overall?

Even if the daily costs of the war level out, the overall cost of the war is likely to mount.

Smetters told Fortune magazine on March 2 that, ultimately, US taxpayers will bear the brunt of this war and estimated the overall cost at $65bn.

“PWBM assumes more upside risk in the Epic Fury scenario. So a $65bn direct hit to taxpayers is the likely cost for direct military operations as well as the replacement of equipment, munitions, and other supplies,” he said.

“If the war lasts more than two months, then this number goes up,” he added.

On March 6, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that the US bombardment on Iran is “about to surge dramatically”, entailing “more fighter squadrons … more defensive capabilities” and “more bomber pulses more frequently”.

The former UK military official told Al Jazeera, “The US has ramped up production of a range of missiles, but the number is low compared to the weapons needed.”

He noted that NATO countries also have their own missile orders, but right now, priority is being given to the US for its own resupply.

“The Middle East countries have limited amounts [of missiles] because of the cost and storage and management of the systems, including training for a threat they didn’t think would happen,” he said.

“In short, they [the US] have to select which incoming attack will be met with which countermeasures to keep hold of the real-time interception missiles which will have to be used against the high-speed missiles,” he added.

There is a way to reduce costs, analysts say, by limiting the use of extremely expensive interceptors. One option being considered is sourcing cheaper, mass-produced missile interceptor systems from Ukraine.

Last Thursday, a congressional source told MS NOW that the “costs [of the war] will likely decrease as the US deploys fewer costly interceptor missiles”.

Phillips told Al Jazeera that US officials already acknowledge they cannot shoot down every drone with interceptors and are focusing on destroying launchers instead.

“The world is working at pace to find more cost-effective ways of mitigating the drone threat. Direct energy weapons are a feasible way, but they can only be used either on ships or bases. They require significant power supplies in order to operate, so [they] aren’t really feasible,” he said.

Meanwhile, the CSIS report’s authors said, while air campaigns typically settle to a less frenetic pace after an intense early period of a conflict, “nevertheless, the unbudgeted costs” will be “substantial”.

“That means that [the Department of Defense] will need additional funds at some point because the level of budget cuts needed to fund this conflict internally would likely be politically and operationally difficult,” said the report.

Will the Trump administration get the money it needs to fund this war?

The Trump administration will have to go cap in hand to Congress in the near future to fund the unbudgeted costs of the war, analysts say.

Reporting from Washington, DC, following the publication of the CSIS analysis last week, Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said the Pentagon had put together a $50bn supplemental budget request in order to replace Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and THAAD interceptors already used in the first week of the war, along with other equipment that had been damaged or worn out so far.

She said the high cost of the war was “probably coming as a shock to members of Congress and the general public”.

“The military burn rate has been rather high.”

Congress is already concerned about the budget deficit and the interest on the federal debt, she added.

“Another $50bn request might give some legislators pause.”

According to a March 6 Politico report, when journalists asked House Speaker Mike Johnson whether Congress would approve $50bn, he said he was not certain of the specific amount the Trump administration would ask for but said Congress would pass the bill “when it’s appropriate and get it right”.