Privatised aid failed the people of Gaza. The world should learn not to repeat it

In 2025, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation experimented with a novel approach to delivering food and aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Instead of using the traditional network of over 400 UN-coordinated sites, the foundation concentrated distribution at just four heavily secured locations. Three of these sites were situated in a military zone in southern Gaza, while one was in central Gaza City.

The foundation claimed to have distributed 187 million meals using this model, suggesting it could be adopted by US President Donald Trump’s Peace plan.

However, my research indicates that this privatized, militarized model poses significant risks and should serve as a warning. Humanitarian assistance in occupied territories must adhere to international humanitarian law and human rights obligations, which aim to protect the civilians receiving aid. The occupying power, in this case Israel, must guarantee access to essentials like food and medical supplies, facilitate relief efforts, and ensure impartial and needs-based distribution.

Civilians must be treated humanely and without discrimination, and relief operations must retain their independence from political and military objectives to preserve their humanitarian character.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's model deviated from these principles, becoming legally problematic. By reducing the number of distribution sites from hundreds to four, the foundation placed civilians at risk of dangerous journeys, especially those in northern Gaza and vulnerable populations such as women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

Additionally, the reliance on private security contractors raised concerns about the line between protecting humanitarian operations and performing military or governmental security functions. Reports suggest that contractors engaged in surveillance, monitored suspicious individuals, and even operated alongside facial-recognition technology, further blurring the distinction between humanitarian assistance and security operations.

The consequences of the foundation's actions were severe, with civilians subjected to treacherous journeys, overcrowding, stampedes, and shootings. Thousands were reported killed or injured near distribution sites and aid routes. While Israel maintained that live fire near humanitarian centers was prohibited except in response to an immediate threat, the broader legal question remains: should civilians be required to expose themselves to foreseeable danger to obtain food?

Outsourcing responsibility through privatization does not eliminate the occupying power's underlying obligations to protect civilians under international law.

This Gaza Humanitarian Foundation experiment highlights the dangers of transforming humanitarian relief from an instrument of protection to one of control when privatized and militarized. It serves as a cautionary tale for the world to learn from and avoid repeating in future humanitarian crises.