For the past 19 months, international organizations have issued urgent warnings about a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. They spoke of hunger and deprivation. But while those cries rang out, aid continued to flow in. So what went wrong?
Everyone knew the answer, but few dared say: Hamas was stealing the aid. It controlled the UN-led distribution mechanisms, diverted supplies for its own fighters, and sold the rest back to desperate civilians at exorbitant prices. Aid meant for starving families was weaponized by a terrorist regime.
Finally, that paradigm was challenged.
Enter the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a new and independent mechanism for distributing aid directly to the people, bypassing the old, compromised systems. In just over a month, the GHF has delivered over 50 million meals to Gazans in need – free of charge. Crowds of civilians have flocked to distribution points despite Hamas threats, intimidation, and even violence.
Why the international backlash?
Why are so many voices that claimed to care about Gazan lives now rushing to discredit or dismantle the GHF? Why are UN agencies – some of which stood by while Hamas siphoned off aid – now echoing the very propaganda Hamas uses to try to destroy the new mechanism?
It begs the bigger question: Was there ever really concern for the people of Gaza?
The criticism is laced with hypocrisy. If the old system worked, why did hunger persist? If it didn’t, why insist on returning to it?
The GHF’s success exposes more than just the inefficiency of past models – it exposes a deep moral failure. The dominant mindset in humanitarian aid has long held that “engagement” with armed groups is necessary to get the job done. For example, in January 2022, the International Committee of the Red Cross published: “Simply put, the ICRC’s engagement with armed groups is a matter of humanitarian necessity.”
The GHF just proved that wrong. Not only is cooperation with terror groups unnecessary, it’s counterproductive. The foundation did more in a few weeks than many of these groups managed in over a year, and without empowering Hamas in the process.
Hamas is in a panic. It has tried to stop the aid physically, used lethal force against civilians, and flooded the media with false claims that Israel is attacking food lines. It’s not a coincidence – it’s a strategy. When you’ve lost control of the food, you’ve lost control of the people.
The hostility toward the GHF is not really about humanitarian principles. It’s about pride, power, and political agendas. The UN, many NGOs, and entrenched interests are uncomfortable with a new mechanism that works better without them.
The success of the GHF threatens their monopoly. It shows that maybe they didn’t have to deal with oppressive regimes to get food to starving children. That perhaps, in other conflicts too, they’ve chosen the easy path – collaboration over confrontation – at the expense of the people they claim to serve.
Going forward
It’s time to reassess. Aid groups must ask themselves: Are we here to help the people or to maintain a failed status quo?
The GHF offers a new model. It’s not perfect – but it’s working. The people of Gaza are speaking with their feet. It’s time the international community listened.
Israel is now planning a new phase: the establishment of a humanitarian city. Such cities are a common practice in areas of conflict and natural disaster. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has an extensive handbook with recommendations regarding size, sanitation, logistics, and more. Such communities have been established around the world – including in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Kenya, and other countries.
This initiative would build on the advantages offered by the GHF, taking them to the next level. It would enhance personal safety for residents; free them from Hamas’s stranglehold and exploitation; enable a more organized, equitable, and efficient distribution of aid; and provide a secure space that could prevent the repeated evacuations caused by Hamas takeovers and resulting military operations.
Such a widely used and potentially beneficial practice – and yet, criticism is at an all-time high. Why? One would think that those who truly care about the well-being of Gazans would welcome the creation of a safe space where civilians can stay until the war ends; a place where they can access a stable aid mechanism, and remain protected from those who seek to exploit them, use them as human shields, recruit their children, and steal their food and water.
Still, when it comes to Israel, hypocrisy seems to reach exceptional heights.
The writer is a member of the Israel Defense And Security Forum. She founded the International Legal Forum, a non-profit organization that works globally to fight terrorism, antisemitism, and the delegitimization of Israel.