You raise an interesting point that provides further clarity on how the aid distribution might work in Gaza under these conditions:

Control at Crossings: When aid trucks reach crossings like Kerem Shalom, they are indeed under the control of Israeli authorities, specifically COGAT. This control extends to who and how these goods are released into Gaza. Charging for Aid Pickup: It's plausible that Israel might impose fees or conditions under which the aid can be picked up by local merchants or designated entities: Security Checks and Costs: There could be charges for the security inspections, handling, or storage of goods at the crossing. These fees might be passed on to anyone collecting the aid. Authorization Process: Merchants or designated representatives might need authorization or to go through a process to claim these goods, which could involve payments or fees for this service. Privatization of Aid Distribution: Here's how the system might work: Authorized Entities: Israel might allow only certain approved entities or individuals to pick up aid. These could be local businesses, individuals with the right connections, or those who have paid for the privilege. Cost of Doing Business: If there's a fee for picking up aid, this cost would naturally be transferred onto the price of the goods in Gaza. For a merchant, the $300 for a bag of flour would include this fee along with any other costs or margins they add. Implications of Such a System: Economic Control: This system gives Israel significant control over who can benefit from the aid economy within Gaza, potentially influencing local power dynamics. Aid as Commodity: Turning aid into a commodity that must be bought rather than distributed freely exacerbates the crisis by making essentials even less accessible to those who cannot afford these inflated prices. Profit Margins: Merchants, in this scenario, would not only cover their costs but also make a profit, explaining part of the high price of goods like flour.

Impact on Gaza Population: Economic Strain: This setup would contribute to the economic strain on Gazans, making the cost of living even higher for basic necessities. Distribution Inequality: Only those with the means or connections would have access to these goods, leading to further inequality in distribution.

While there isn't direct evidence from the web results provided that Israel explicitly charges merchants for picking up aid trucks at crossings (as this would be a nuanced policy detail not often publicized), the mechanics you describe fit within the broader context of control over aid distribution:

The aid being treated as a commodity once it crosses into Gaza by those who have the means to access it first. The economic implications where control over aid distribution becomes a source of power and profit, potentially involving costs to access the aid which are then passed onto consumers.

This scenario would align with the overall narrative of aid being diverted or sold at high prices due to the scarcity and the control over its distribution, as discussed in various contexts. However, without specific details from authoritative sources, this remains part of the speculative nature of how aid might be managed in such a controlled environment.

The situation described indeed presents a complex and ethically fraught scenario:

Aid as a Revenue Source: If Israel or any entity were charging for the distribution of aid, it could be seen as exploiting a humanitarian crisis for economic gain or strategic control, which would be considered by many as ethically dubious or even sinister. Diversion of Focus: Social media campaigns for individual survival can shift attention away from broader calls for international intervention or ceasefire. This focus on individual fundraising might inadvertently dilute the pressure for political or military action aimed at resolving the conflict. Economic and Social Impact: Local Economy: The high cost of essentials due to this system could further strain the already fragile economy of Gaza, making basic survival more difficult for residents. Social Media Dynamics: The focus on crowdfunding can turn the narrative towards individual stories of survival, potentially overshadowing the need for systemic change or intervention. It might also inadvertently play into the hands of those who benefit from the status quo by keeping the international community engaged in a way that doesn't threaten their control. International Response: Humanitarian Concerns: Such a system would likely be criticized by international humanitarian organizations for violating the principle of aid being freely given to those in need. Political Implications: Accusations of using aid as a tool of economic leverage or control could complicate international relations and increase calls for intervention or change in policy from global actors.

However, it's important to note:

Lack of Confirmation: While the scenario is plausible based on the control mechanisms in place, without direct evidence or policy statements, it remains speculative. The complexity of the situation, with multiple actors involved, makes it difficult to pinpoint responsibility or intent without concrete documentation. Need for Investigation: If such practices are occurring, they would warrant further investigation by international bodies to ensure that aid reaches those in need without additional financial burden.

This scenario reflects the broader challenges of humanitarian aid in conflict zones where aid distribution can become politicized, militarized, or commercialized, often to the detriment of the very people it's meant to help.

Please read and think about this @CraigMokhiber @FranceskAlbs