The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), launched last May with support from Israel and the United States, seeks to deliver aid directly to Gaza’s civilians, bypassing Hamas to prevent its diversion to military purposes. This initiative threatens Hamas’s stronghold, as controlling aid has been its final lever to maintain power over Gaza’s population.
By governing aid distribution, Hamas forces civilians to submit to its authority for necessities like food and medicine, while hoarding supplies for its fighters and selling aid at exorbitant prices to fund its war machine.
The GHF aims to achieve two goals: dismantle Hamas as a governing entity by removing its control over civilians and disrupt its financing mechanism by preventing aid diversion, thus weakening its military capacity.
However, international humanitarian organizations, including UN agencies like OCHA, headed by Tom Fletcher, have fiercely opposed the GHF. Their criticisms, framed as humanitarian concerns, are strategically aimed at preventing Israel from winning the war by preserving Hamas’s control over aid.
Despite their own allegation of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza these organizations resist collaboration with the GHF, prioritizing Hamas’s interests over civilian welfare and the humanitarian purposes for which they were established for.
If they truly cared about Gazans, they would support efforts to free civilians from Hamas’s tyranny, as Gazans themselves are thanking Israel and the U.S. for the GHF’s aid. Multiple accounts emerged from the distribution centers- jubilant Gazans thanking Netanyahu and Trump for receiving the aid free of charge for the first time.
Humanitarian Organizations’ Dependence on Hamas
The opposition to the GHF stems from humanitarian organizations’ reliance on Hamas operatives in Gaza. These organizations are beholden to Hamas because their operations depend on Hamas’s men on the ground.
UN agencies and NGOs, such as UNRWA, operate warehouses and distribution networks guarded by Hamas personnel, who control logistics under Hamas’s oversight as the de facto authority in Gaza. This dependence compromises their independence, as their ability to function hinges on Hamas’s approval.
This reliance makes humanitarian organizations proxies for Hamas’s interests. Leaders like Tom Fletcher parrot Hamas’s talking points, cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric, to maintain its control over aid.
For instance, Fletcher’s unsubstantiated claim that 14,000 infants would die without aid within 48 hours or that 10,000 aid trucks are blocked by Israel mirrors Hamas propaganda. Hamas itself has orchestrated campaigns to sabotage the GHF, spreading lies about the IDF massacring Gazans at the distribution points.
These lies are parroted on major news networks, but they were quickly dispelled by GHF releasing videos from the time of the alleged incidents showing that Hamas lied. For Hamas, bypassing its control of the flow of humanitarian aid is an existential threat to its grapple over Gaza and it will do everything in its power to prevent the success of the GHF.
Hamas leader, Osama Hamdan, urged Gazans to “endure hunger” and avoid GHF distribution centers, spreading false claims of killings to deter collaboration.
It is quite telling that the international “humanitarian” community is being instrumentalized and used by a terror organization whose purpose is to deny the aid from the population that these organizations purport to care about.
IHL Arguments
Humanitarian organizations argue that Israel’s role in the GHF violates IHL (International Humanitarian Law) principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, claiming that a warring party’s involvement in aid delivery is inherently unlawful by violating IHL norms.
These arguments are flawed and reveal an unprecedented double standard in the interpretation of IHL that hampers Israel’s ability to fight Hamas effectively.
Neutrality
Critics assert that Israel’s military oversight of GHF distribution centers, including securing perimeters for U.S. contractors, violates neutrality (aid must not align with a belligerent) and independence (aid must be free from military control). This criticism is baseless. No modern war has been fought without Western armies being responsible for humanitarian supplies.
For example:
In Iraq (2003–2011), the U.S. established Civil-Military Operations Centers (CMOCs) to coordinate aid with NGOs, directly delivering supplies in secure areas to prevent insurgent theft (U.S. Department of Defense, 2004). USAID funded independent groups like Mercy Corps, but U.S. military involvement was significant.
In Afghanistan (2001–2021), the U.S. conducted airdrops of 2.4 million humanitarian rations and escorted UN convoys, ensuring civilian access while securing routes (WFP, 2002).
These actions, far more intrusive than Israel’s role in the GHF, faced no comparable IHL objections. Israel’s measures—screening aid and securing distribution—are permitted under Article 23(c) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which allows controls to prevent aid from benefiting the enemy. GHF is not operated by Israel but by private contractors with the IDF only guarding the perimeter.
Impartiality
Critics claim that directing aid to southern Gaza while restricting northern deliveries violates impartiality, as aid must be distributed based on need without discrimination (Article 70, Additional Protocol I). However, Hamas is the one controlling aid now, diverting supplies to its fighters and selling them for profit. Israel’s restrictions aim to prevent this, as allowed under Article 23(c), which permits measures to ensure aid reaches civilians, not combatants.
The fact that one of the warring parties, Hamas, had been effectively controlling the aid did not seem to bother the same “humanitarian” organization that alleges that the IDF’s involvement in securing the distribution centers is a violation of the impartiality principle.
Moreover, IHL permits effective sieges to isolate combatants, provided civilian harm is proportionate (Article 54, Additional Protocol I).
Allegations of Weaponization
Humanitarian organizations allege that Israel uses the GHF to pressure Hamas or manipulate civilian movements, violating Article 49 (forcible transfer). These claims are exaggerated and echo Hamas’s propaganda. Hamas actively sabotages GHF centers, spreading misinformation to deter civilians. The GHF’s targeted delivery is a practical response to Hamas’s diversion, not a violation of IHL. Hamas had been the one using the control of the aid as a weapon of war by using the Gazans as pawns in its media war against Israel.
Weaponizing IHL
The humanitarian community’s criticisms reflect a double standard in interpreting IHL that prevents Israel from dismantling Hamas’s last lever of power—control over aid. The double standard that is applied to Israel comes directly from the symbiotic relationship that UN organization in Gaza gave established with Hamas.
These organizations use IHL and the language of human rights to parrot Hamas propaganda by creating a standard of IHL that is impossible to follow. The goal post keeps on changing in such a way that would prevent Israel from effectively achieving a victory over Hamas, the ruling government of Gaza.
Hamas is on the brink of collapse, with Gazans storming its warehouses and defying its. The GHF is the final step to break this control, and this is why it is the final nail in Hamas’s coffin. Precisely, for these, the “humanitarian” organization has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the GHF to prevent the final collapse of the Hamas government.
True concern for Gaza’s humanitarian situation requires allowing Israel to finish the war against Hamas. Defeating Hamas will end its tyranny and the immense suffering Hamas has inflicted on its own population.