As Gaza reels under Israel’s continuing blockade, the US has announced a new system to deliver humanitarian aid — bypassing the UN and local agencies, using private contractors, and building security-protected “distribution centres” with Israeli military perimeter control.

Presented as a way to stop Hamas from “stealing aid,” this plan has already been rejected by major humanitarian groups as unworkable and unethical.

But beyond the headlines, what’s really going on — and why could this become one of the most dangerous precedents in modern humanitarian practice?

What is the US-Israel aid plan?

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), reportedly backed by the U.S., aims to set up four distribution sites initially, providing food, water, and hygiene kits to 1.2 million Palestinians, less than 60 per cent of Gaza’s population.

Key features include:

• Private security contractors protecting the centres.
• Israeli forces securing outer perimeters.
• Gazan civilians needing to walk (often long distances) to these centres, in a war zone, to collect aid.
• Exclusion of the UN, World Central Kitchen, or other experienced humanitarian agencies.

Ambassador Mike Huckabee claims this system will ensure Hamas cannot steal aid or divert supplies — a key US and Israeli talking point.

Why is it controversial?

The UN, UNICEF, OCHA, and humanitarian non-governmental organisations are refusing to participate. Here’s why:

Aid as a weapon of displacement: By concentrating aid only in Rafah and “sterile zones,” the plan effectively forces Gazans to move south, displacing populations under cover of aid distribution.

Militarised aid breaks humanitarian law: Under international law, aid must be neutral, impartial, and independent. Mixing military/security control into distribution risks making civilians targets and erodes trust in humanitarian systems worldwide.

Existing aid mechanisms are blocked, not broken: The UN says its supplies are ready to go — thousands of tonnes are stalled at the borders, simply waiting for Israel to open crossings. The problem isn’t Hamas stealing aid; it’s Israel’s siege preventing delivery.

Human cost: Elderly, sick, disabled, pregnant women, children — the most vulnerable cannot walk long distances through militarised zones to get aid. Centralised hubs serve political control, not humanitarian need.

Is there evidence Hamas is stealing aid?

Despite repeated claims, agencies like the World Health Organization report no looting of medical supplies. When aid flows freely and at scale, instances of theft drop sharply. The real risk is not Hamas stockpiling flour but famine and disease spreading across Gaza as Israel’s blockade continues.

What should be done instead?

Lift the blockade: Open the borders for immediate delivery through established UN, Red Cross, and NGO networks.

Scale up proven systems: Use the existing 400+ UN distribution points, which have worked even under bombardment, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Guarantee aid neutrality: Keep military forces away from the delivery process to uphold humanitarian law.

Pressure for ceasefire and hostage release: Sustainable aid delivery can only happen in a context of reduced violence. Diplomatic pressure must focus here.

Why this matters beyond Gaza

If governments can re-engineer humanitarian systems to suit their military aims, it sets a precedent that could haunt conflict zones worldwide — from Ukraine to Sudan to Yemen.

Neutrality and impartiality are the backbone of humanitarian action.

Undermining them risks destroying not just Gaza’s survival but global trust in the entire aid system.