US Aid Plan for Gaza Faces Major Backlash: 5 Critical Flaws That Could Worsen the Crisis

The U.S. and Israel unveiled a controversial aid plan to address Gaza’s hunger crisis through a privately managed foundation, aiming to initially feed 60% of the population via four secure distribution sites guarded by military contractors and Israeli forces. While U.S. officials framed it as a solution to prevent Hamas from diverting aid, the UN and major humanitarian groups rejected the proposal as impractical and insecure, arguing it ignores Israel’s blockade—the root cause of shortages—and risks displacing civilians by forcing them to travel long distances.

Critics stress the plan’s reliance on just four sites (compared to 400 pre-war distribution points) leaves 800,000 Gazans without immediate access, fails to involve local agencies, and prioritizes political optics over systemic change. Meanwhile, UNRWA reports food and medical supplies have already run out, with malnutrition rates soaring. Israel denies the crisis’ severity, dismissing starvation claims as “lies,” while Hamas condemns the initiative as a tool of oppression.

Analysts warn that without lifting the blockade, such stopgap measures risk deepening Gaza’s collapse, leaving civilians trapped between geopolitical stalemates and unmet humanitarian needs.

US Aid Plan for Gaza Faces Major Backlash: 5 Critical Flaws That Could Worsen the Crisis

As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens under Israel’s prolonged blockade, a contentious U.S.-backed aid initiative has sparked debate over how to deliver relief without empowering Hamas. The Biden administration’s newly proposed plan, developed alongside Israel, aims to feed 60% of Gaza’s population through a private foundation—but the UN and major humanitarian organizations warn it risks exacerbating suffering while failing to address systemic issues.  

The US-Israel Proposal: Aims and Limitations 

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-established private entity, plans to distribute pre-packaged food, hygiene kits, and medical supplies through four secure distribution sites. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee framed the effort as a workaround to prevent Hamas from diverting aid, a persistent Israeli concern. Private military contractors would secure the sites, with Israeli forces providing perimeter security.  

However, the plan’s initial phase would only reach 1.2 million people—leaving 800,000 without guaranteed access. Huckabee acknowledged the gap but emphasized scaling over time, stating, “You have to start somewhere.” Critics argue the approach ignores the pre-war network of 400 distribution points, forcing displaced families to travel long distances amid ongoing conflict.  

UN and Aid Groups: “Unfeasible and Insecure” 

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) rejected the proposal, calling it “practically unfeasible” and incompatible with humanitarian principles. UN agencies stressed that Israel’s blockade—which restricts food, fuel, and medical supplies—remains the root cause of starvation. UNRWA, the primary aid agency in Gaza, reported that flour and food parcels have already run out, with medical supplies dwindling.  

Palestinian aid organizations echoed these concerns. Amjad Al-Shawa, director of a coalition of Gaza-based NGOs, criticized the plan for sidelining local actors and violating humanitarian standards. Hamas condemned the initiative as a tool for “subjugation through starvation,” accusing Israel of weaponizing aid.

Behind the Plan: Geopolitical Tensions 

The U.S. and Israel have long accused Hamas of siphoning aid, though evidence remains sparse. The new foundation’s reliance on private contractors and exclusion of UN agencies reflects dwindling trust in traditional channels. Notably, the foundation’s leadership includes former CEOs of disaster-response groups like Team Rubicon and World Central Kitchen—a move seen as an attempt to lend credibility.  

Yet the UN’s refusal to participate highlights a stark divide. “Israel’s obligations under international law cannot be outsourced to a private entity,” an OCHA representative argued. Meanwhile, Israeli officials continue to downplay the crisis, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Heskel dismissing starvation reports as “complete lies,” despite evidence of rampant malnutrition.  

The Human Cost: A Race Against Time 

Gaza’s 2.1 million residents face catastrophic conditions. Over 90% report skipping meals, and child malnutrition rates rival those of conflict zones like Sudan. The blockade, nearing its third month, has crippled infrastructure, with hospitals lacking anesthesia and families drinking polluted water.  

While the U.S. plan could take weeks to launch—and longer to scale—aid groups stress that immediate action is needed. “Every delay risks lives,” said a UNRWA spokesperson. Critics argue that without lifting the siege, even well-intentioned efforts will fall short.  

Conclusion: A Flawed Lifeline? 

The U.S.-Israel proposal underscores the challenges of balancing security concerns with humanitarian imperatives. While innovative in its attempt to bypass Hamas, its reliance on limited distribution points and exclusion of established aid networks raises practical and ethical questions. As Gaza teeters on the brink of famine, the international community remains divided—with civilians paying the price for political stalemates.  

For lasting change, experts urge addressing the blockade’s root causes rather than stopgap measures. “Aid cannot be a substitute for justice,” said Al-Shawa. “Without freedom of movement and access, Gaza’s crisis will only deepen.”