A New Front in the Gaza Aid Crisis: The Controversial Emergence of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

As Gaza faces one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history, a new and controversial actor has emerged on the aid landscape: the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Backed by the United States and registered in Geneva, the GHF presents itself as a bold alternative to the traditional UN-led relief system, promising safe, transparent, and politically neutral delivery of aid to Palestinians in the besieged enclave. However, its model, structure, and timing raise serious ethical and political questions.

Why GHF, Why Now?

Months of continuous conflict and blockade have severely damaged Gaza’s aid infrastructure. With UNRWA under political attack and supply routes blocked by both Israeli restrictions and internal disorder, humanitarian aid has struggled to reach the people who need it most. According to GHF’s founding document, “aid diversion, active combat, and restricted access have eroded donor confidence and prevented life-saving assistance from reaching civilians.” GHF presents itself as the answer to that collapse: a new, closely monitored delivery system run by experienced crisis managers and supported by powerful Western institutions.

A Militarized, Private-Sector Model

At the heart of GHF’s operations is a network of Secure Distribution Sites (SDS)—four centralized hubs, each able to serve 300,000 people, with plans to expand to reach over two million Gazans. These sites are designed not only to distribute food, water, hygiene kits, and medical supplies, but to operate without depending on either Hamas or the United Nations. The logistics chain is protected by private contractors using armored vehicles, and site security will be handled by personnel who have worked in previous U.S. and Israeli-led missions—such as the Netzarim Corridor.

While GHF insists that the Israeli military will not be present at SDS locations, the plan is clearly coordinated with the Israeli military's humanitarian branch (COGAT) for access and security clearance. Critics argue that this makes GHF a politically aligned actor—despite its claims of neutrality.

Western Leadership and Oversight

The GHF is led by a team of well-known figures in Western humanitarian, security, and military fields. Executive Director Jake Wood is a former Marine and founder of Team Rubicon. David Burke, another Team Rubicon veteran, serves as COO. The Head of Mission, John Acree, previously worked with USAID. Its advisory board includes former World Food Programme chief David Beasley, UN security expert Bill A. Miller, and U.S. General Mark Schwartz, who formerly coordinated security between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Legal counsel is being arranged with one of the world’s top law firms, and financial operations are secured through Truist Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and a soon-to-be-launched Swiss partner supported by Goldman Sachs. These institutions were chosen to make sure donations are safe, traceable, and managed with high standards.

The U.S. Push for UN Involvement

While the original concept of GHF appeared to sideline existing institutions like UNRWA, the U.S. administration has recently expressed interest in involving the United Nations in the plan. According to reporting by the Financial Times and AP News, U.S. officials have pressured the UN and other international aid groups to support the GHF plan. They reportedly warned of possible funding cuts if these agencies do not engage with the new model.

Despite this outreach, many UN agencies and humanitarian organizations remain skeptical. UNICEF and others have voiced concern that the creation of centralized distribution sites could increase the suffering of families—especially children—by forcing people to travel through unsafe areas to access food and essentials. The use of private contractors and coordination with Israeli authorities has also raised alarm about neutrality, access, and long-term consequences.

Inside GHF: What the Foundation Says It Will Do

According to GHF’s internal documents, the organization plans to provide secure, transparent, and politically neutral humanitarian aid in Gaza. The plan centers around four Secure Distribution Sites (SDS), each designed to serve 300,000 people, with room to expand to over two million. These hubs will offer pre-packaged food, hygiene kits, and other essential supplies through tightly monitored routes.

GHF highlights cost-effectiveness—each 1,750 kcal meal reportedly costs $1.31, including food, logistics, and security. The organization is backed by leaders in humanitarian work, diplomacy, military logistics, and finance. It promises full accountability, with independent audits, real-time dashboards, and secure banking through JPMorgan, Truist, and a future Swiss affiliate.

Instead of replacing existing organizations, GHF invites NGOs to use its system. It will offer physical security, tracking, and community support through local “champions.” GHF’s materials emphasize fairness, dignity, and need-based access.

Minimum Calories, Maximum Politics

In humanitarian emergencies, aid agencies follow the Sphere Humanitarian Standards, which set the minimum daily calorie intake at 2,100 kilocalories (kcal) per person. This is the basic amount needed to stay healthy and avoid malnutrition during crises.

GHF’s food plan offers 1,750 kcal per meal at $1.31, including all costs. While this seems close to the minimum, it is still not enough for many people—especially children, pregnant women, or those under stress. Human rights groups warn that long-term lack of calories can lead to wasting, stunting, and even famine deaths if not corrected.

A Model of Accountability—Or Control?

The GHF promotes transparency at every step. It offers independent audits, real-time data, third-party checks, and community feedback. Donors can also give food and supplies or support NGOs that send their aid through GHF.

But beneath this strong structure is a deeper concern: who controls the basic needs of Palestinians in Gaza? Centralizing aid distribution means people may have to move to specific sites to receive help—possibly leaving destroyed homes and shelters. This creates a system where some survive and others are left behind. It risks turning humanitarian aid into a method of control, not just relief.

Exclusion of Local and UN Actors

One of the most debated aspects of the GHF plan is its lack of involvement with Palestinian institutions and limited cooperation with the United Nations. GHF says it is open to working with local NGOs, but it is unclear how those relationships will work. Presenting GHF as a neutral group ignores the power imbalance between its Western leadership and the people it claims to serve—and the long history of foreign control in Palestinian affairs.

By using Israeli ports (Ashdod and Kerem Shalom) to bring in supplies, GHF further strengthens Israel’s role as the gatekeeper of aid—ironically the same dynamic that helped create the crisis it now seeks to address.

Conclusion: A Humanitarian Lifeline or a Political Project?

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation promotes itself as a practical and modern solution to Gaza’s humanitarian disaster. Its smooth structure, financial oversight, and well-known leaders may appeal to donors tired of the current system. But to many Palestinians and aid experts, it looks like a top-down, Western-controlled model that redefines neutrality in political terms.

Whether GHF will truly help people or create new forms of dependency remains to be seen. What’s clear is that aid in Gaza is no longer only about survival—it’s also about control, power, and who gets to define what dignity looks like in a place under siege.