Under the relentless pressure of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has emerged as a lightning rod for controversy, despite its ambitious goal of delivering food directly to families in the besieged territory. Since May, the U.S.-backed initiative—operating in conjunction with Israeli entities—has managed to distribute over 70 million meals to the civilian population. However, the foundation’s efforts have not been without opposition. Hamas has mounted a persistent campaign of violence against GHF’s operations, including several deadly attacks on its distribution sites. Additionally, the U.N. and a coalition of international NGOs have voiced sharp criticism, with some going so far as to label the foundation’s work as a ‘deadly scam.’
At the heart of this conflict is the long-standing debate over the best approach to aid distribution in Gaza. Critics, including UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, argue that GHF’s model—designed to bypass traditional aid agencies—has created more chaos and suffering than it has alleviated. Lazzarini and a group of 230 NGOs, among them well-known organizations like Amnesty International and Save the Children, have accused GHF of failing to provide adequate aid, with some reports even suggesting that the distribution system has resulted in the deaths of 800 starving people. These claims have been met with vehement rebuttals from GHF, which maintains that the figures are fabricated by Hamas-controlled authorities and that the U.N. has become complicit in spreading misinformation by collaborating with the terrorist group.
The GHF’s founder, Gerald Steinberg, has framed the organization’s mission not just as a humanitarian endeavor but also as a necessary economic reform. He asserts that GHF is breaking a cycle of dependency on the traditional aid system, which he views as corrupt and inefficient. This perspective is supported by the growing financial backing from U.S. government agencies, including an initial $30 million allocation and potential for future grants. However, the group’s ability to operate effectively is constantly threatened by the hostile environment in Gaza, where Hamas has sought to disrupt aid efforts and undermine international support for the initiative.
John Acree, GHF’s interim Executive Director, has expressed a sense of urgency in scaling the operation, noting that the organization has encountered significant resistance and that the population in Gaza is in dire need of assistance. He has called for greater collaboration with UN and NGO groups, emphasizing that the aid effort should be a collective effort. Yet, the challenges remain substantial, with reports of staff members being killed and attacks on aid workers, including the recent grenade attack on U.S. veterans working with GHF. These incidents underscore the complex and dangerous context in which aid is being delivered, with the potential for aid to be both a lifeline and a target.
As GHF continues its operations, the debate over the efficacy and legitimacy of its approach is likely to intensify. With the U.S. government poised to provide further financial support, the organization’s success—or failure—could have lasting implications for the broader humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the way international aid is managed in conflict zones. Meanwhile, the international community faces the difficult task of balancing political considerations with the urgent need to provide aid in a region where the humanitarian situation is dire, and where every action has the potential to exacerbate or alleviate suffering.