Several European governments are reassessing whether to continue sending personnel to a US military-led coordination centre in southern Israel set up to oversee elements of President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan, according to eight diplomats.
The review follows growing scepticism among some participating states that the facility has delivered neither a sustained increase in humanitarian aid entering Gaza nor any clear political momentum on post-war governance.
The facility, known as the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC), was established in October 2025 near the Gaza border and is run by a US general, with American and Israeli military personnel present. Dozens of countries, including Germany, France and Britain, have sent officials ranging from military planners to intelligence staff, diplomats said, describing the arrangement as an attempt to shape discussions on Gaza’s future from inside a US-led process.
Diplomats told Reuters that, after the Christmas and New Year period, some European officials did not return to the centre, and several governments were questioning its purpose. One Western diplomat described the CMCC as “directionless”, while another said many partners saw it as failing but felt there was no workable alternative structure. The diplomats did not identify which governments are reconsidering their participation.
The debate in European capitals comes as the Trump administration pushes what it calls a second phase of its Gaza plan. US officials said the next stage would focus on demilitarisation and reconstruction, alongside new governance arrangements intended to be overseen by a proposed “Board of Peace”. Reporting on the broader board has described it as an international body intended to supervise Gaza policy during a transitional period, with US special envoy Steve Witkoff playing a central role.
How the CMCC would fit into this second-phase architecture is unclear, diplomats said, including how it would interact with Gaza-focused bodies expected to sit under the Board of Peace, such as a committee of Palestinian technocrats referenced in reporting on the plan’s next steps. The diplomats’ concern is that, if the CMCC is sidelined without a replacement mechanism that includes international partners, day-to-day decisions on access and post-war planning could revert even more heavily to Israeli institutions.
Aid delivery has become a central point of contention. Diplomats told Reuters they had not seen a significant increase in humanitarian relief entering Gaza since the October ceasefire, disputing public assertions by Washington that access had improved. They said a substantial share of trucks entering the enclave carried commercial goods rather than humanitarian supplies, and argued that Israel remains effectively in control of Gaza’s aid policy even though the CMCC was tasked with helping facilitate the flow of relief.
Israel, through COGAT — the Defence Ministry body that coordinates civilian policy and access — has presented a different picture of what is crossing into Gaza. A COGAT official cited in the Reuters report said 45 per cent of trucks entering since the ceasefire were commercial vehicles transporting food and other everyday goods, describing commercial shipments as a supplement to humanitarian delivery. The official said humanitarian trucks were prioritised, and that if additional humanitarian trucks were available they would be allowed to enter.
Disputes also persist over restrictions on items Israel classifies as “dual-use”, meaning materials it says could be repurposed for military purposes. Diplomats told Reuters that Israel had made no concessions on dual-use categories, which they said include items such as metal poles used to erect tents for displaced civilians. The COGAT official acknowledged continued restrictions, while saying alternatives were being sourced, including wooden substitutes for tent poles.
Beyond aid, diplomats said CMCC personnel have produced a series of policy papers covering reconstruction and governance, but they were uncertain whether any of the work would be adopted. The question of territorial control remains politically sensitive: Reuters reported that, as the second phase was announced, there was no mention of additional Israeli withdrawals beyond a partial pullback that has left 53 per cent of Gaza in Israeli hands. In a separate report in November, Reuters said some US partners feared Gaza could drift towards de facto partition if the plan stalled beyond the ceasefire phase.
The CMCC itself has become a domestic political target inside Israel. On 19 January, Reuters reported that Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to shut the centre down, criticising the participation of some foreign states and arguing the mechanism constrained Israeli freedom of action. Smotrich’s intervention adds to uncertainty over how long the centre can function as a forum for international coordination.
Diplomats said it was unlikely that European countries would formally quit the CMCC in the near term, partly to avoid a public rupture with Washington and partly to preserve access should the centre gain influence in later stages of the plan. They also noted the absence of Palestinian representatives at the CMCC, arguing that continued European participation was one of the few levers available inside the mechanism to press for greater consideration of Palestinian interests in post-war planning.
Fighting has continued despite the ceasefire, including repeated Israeli strikes in Gaza that Israel says were intended to prevent attacks by Hamas. Since the truce began in October, more than 460 Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers have been killed. Against that backdrop, European governments face a choice between maintaining a contested presence within a US-led framework or scaling back from a centre they privately describe as ineffective, despite having no clear alternative channel for influence.
