No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Read our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Leaked US military papers seen by Byline Times suggest that Gaza’s newly created Civil-Military Coordination Centre, now endorsed by the UN Security Council as part of Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, will function more as a US Army command post than a humanitarian hub.
Presented publicly as the logistical nerve-centre of Gaza’s reconstruction, the CMCC appears instead to weld military oversight to civilian governance. Its structure and leadership echo a forward headquarters rather than a neutral relief body, raising questions about who truly seeks to shape Gaza’s future: aid agencies or an American-led security apparatus operating from inside Israel.
Humanitarian Hub or Military Mission?
Critics from a number of Palestinian advocacy organisations in London have said the CMCC promises false humanitarian and reconstruction proposals.
The leaked papers, given to the London-based conflict research charity Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), outline how the 20-point plan devised by Trump is to be implemented.
Chaired personally by the President, it promises to synchronise relief, stabilisation and rebuilding efforts under the slogan “Earn Trust with Actions.” Based in a warehouse complex in Kiryat Gat, a short drive from Tel Aviv, this new “humanitarian” operation, inaugurated on 17 October 2025, is presented as the centrepiece of Gaza’s post-war recovery.
UK Government Flouted Own Rules Designed to Stop Gaza Intelligence Harming Palestinian Civilians
The revelation raises questions over whether the UK applied safeguards designed to prevent information from 600 RAF intelligence flights being used to harm civilians in Gaza
US Army Control
The documents show that the CMCC is led by the US Army Central Command (ARCENT) and overseen by an “Executive Committee” of American generals and civilian appointees.
The document identifies a list of military actors whose exact role in the CMCC is unclear, but who appear to hold operating roles on the ground. They include Yaniv Asor, a major-general in the Israel Defence Forces and newly appointed commander of its Southern Command. He has long served in frontline infantry and reconnaissance formations in Gaza and Lebanon.
His CMCC and US counterpart appears to be Brad Cooper, a US Navy vice-admiral, who has, since February 2024, served as deputy commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM) and was nominated for its top job by the Trump administration in June 2025.
Further on the US side, appears to be “MG Drake”, likely to be Aaron D. Drake, a senior officer in the the US Air Force nominated for Major General in mid-2025 and serving in senior defence-intelligence roles.
The list of senior military commanders is long indeed. Present is “RDML Sicola” or US Navy Rear Admiral Craig C. Sicola who serves as Vice Director, Strategy, Plans and Policy J5 for United States Central Command. Another flag-officer is “RADM Schlereth”, or US Navy Rear Admiral Frank G. Schlereth, a Senior Defence Official/Defence Attaché to Israel. Other military advisors include Lt Gen Michael R. Fenzel, the US Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Rear Adm Adan G. Cruz, CENTCOM’s J5 director.
The CMCC’s documents are also notable for their language of logistics and chain of command. They describe a site “operating 24/7” where every participating country or organisation is assigned an office and an “LOE” (line of effort). It is framed under six priorities: Intelligence, Security, Humanitarian Assistance, Reconstruction, International Stabilisation, and Civil Governance, echoing the structural language of a military, rather than a humanitarian campaign
The leadership table for the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC) makes plain who is in charge and it is not aid agencies. Many of the “lines of effort” are led by the United States military.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Chains of Command
Security is headed up directly by ARCENT under a two-star flag American military officer. The International Stabilisation Force is nominally headed by a civilian chosen by the Executive Committee but supported by ARCENT’s 42nd Infantry Division and 1st Theater Sustainment Command, led by Major Generals Jack James and Brad Hinson.
Notably, intelligence falls under US CENTCOM J2, backed by ARCENT G2 Colonel Cory McKoy and Colonel Sapriya McLendon of the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade.
Humanitarian assistance is likewise managed by ARCENT’s 1st Theater Sustainment Command under Hinson, with support from the US State Department’s Disaster Assistance Response Team and Office of Assistance Coordination. Reconstruction and infrastructure are assigned to a civilian lead appointed by the Executive Committee, assisted by US Army engineers Colonel Matt Molinski and Colonel Chris Klein.
Civil Governance follows the same pattern: an Executive Committee appointee supported by Colonel Stu Peebles of ARCENT. Communications are slated to be run by civilians, but one of their remit is to “Counter Malign Narrative (Mis/Dis-Information)”.
Embedded, too, are a small team of British military planning officers, led by a two-star deputy commander, serving within the CMCC alongside personnel from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the UAE. It is understood that the British second in command in the CMCC is Major General Tom Bateman CBE.
Insiders familiar with the CMCC have told Byline Times that the personnel at the CMCC are meant to be 60% military and 40% civilian. But the line-up of known names seems to suggest a far larger proportion – closer to 90% – are military.
Palestinians Excluded?
One UN source, who cannot be named, told Byline Times that “the way this entity has been set up is, frankly, naive. One of its six ‘lines of effort’ is intelligence and another is security, so it is almost certain that the Israeli military intelligence unit Shin Bet are on the floor – something colleagues from other UN agencies have also suggested.”
“There are no Palestinians involved in any of these lines of effort, which makes claims of inclusivity hollow”, added the source.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during his visit to the CMCC on the 24 October 2025, spoke admiringly of “an historic mission” where “you see a lot of uniforms here.” Aid, he said, was “a massive undertaking,” but one that would be run through the same security apparatus responsible for maintaining the ceasefire, while the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was “not going to play any role.”
This does not reassure many of those watching the security of Palestine closely.
Ben Jamal, director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, told Byline Times that “the best international body to coordinate the delivery of effective humanitarian relief at scale in the Gaza Strip is UNWRA, which has the necessary authority, experience and infrastructure… The UK government must push to reinstate the full role of UNRWA and oppose Israeli efforts to oppress and abuse Palestinians through false humanitarian and reconstruction proposals.”
Reoccupation?
A US official familiar with the CMCC said that it is presently a “military-led coordination centre,” expected to “transition to civilian-led” over time.
They said the centre’s purpose is to “facilitate the flow of humanitarian, security, and logistical assistance” into Gaza and to “support stabilisation efforts” as part of President Trump’s peace plan for what the administration calls a “strong, durable, and everlasting peace.”
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told Byline Times: “A small number of UK planning officers have embedded in the US led CMCC, including a two star deputy commander to ensure that the UK remains integrated into the US led planning efforts for Gaza post-conflict stability.”
Whether the CMCC succeeds may depend less on its logistics than on its legitimacy. For many, rebuilding Gaza from an Israeli base under US military coordination is not recovery, but looks more like reoccupation by other means.