US-Backed Gaza Aid Group Shuts Down Amid Controversy Over Deadly Violence 

The US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has ended its controversial operations after a six-month tenure marked by significant controversy, as it claimed to have successfully delivered 187 million meals directly to Gazans while creating a model that prevented aid diversion, but its legacy is severely contested by documented evidence that its four distribution sites became flashpoints of violence where over 1,000 Palestinians were killed or injured by Israeli forces and US security contractors, leading to widespread condemnation from international aid organizations that refused to work with the opaque entity, which they accused of exploiting humanitarian relief for military agendas and violating core principles of neutrality and safety, ultimately leaving a deeply polarized account of an organization that its US backers credit with helping achieve a ceasefire and its detractors hold accountable for causing immense harm.

US-Backed Gaza Aid Group Shuts Down Amid Controversy Over Deadly Violence 

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s brief, violent tenure as an alternative aid provider leaves a legacy of scrutiny and a looming question: can humanitarian principles survive in militarized zones? 

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S. and Israel-backed organization that became embroiled in controversy over its aid distribution methods in Gaza, announced on November 24, 2025, that it was permanently shuttering operations. The organization stated it had “successfully completed its emergency mission” of demonstrating what it called a better way to deliver aid to Gazans. 

The GHF’s nearly six-month operation was marked by extraordinary claims from all sides: the organization said it delivered the equivalent of 187 million meals while ensuring Hamas couldn’t divert aid; the UN documented hundreds killed near its distribution sites; contractors described firing live ammunition at desperate civilians; and human rights organizations called the model an “exploitation of humanitarian relief for military agendas”. 

An Alternative Aid Model Born From Crisis 

The GHF began operations in Gaza on May 26, 2025, emerging at a critical juncture in the territory’s humanitarian crisis. Israel had previously imposed a total blockade on aid and commercial deliveries to Gaza that lasted 11 weeks and caused severe shortages of essential supplies, leading to a declared famine in Gaza City. 

The foundation was established with explicit U.S. and Israeli backing as an alternative to the United Nations aid distribution system. Israeli officials claimed the UN system allowed Hamas to divert large amounts of aid, though the UN consistently denied these allegations. The U.S. State Department would later credit GHF’s model with playing a “huge role in getting Hamas to the table and achieving a ceasefire” because, in their view, “Hamas could no longer loot and profit from stealing aid”. 

The organization operated just four distribution sites – three in southern Gaza and one near Gaza City – all located inside Israeli military zones and operated by U.S. private security contractors. This stood in stark contrast to the UN’s network of hundreds of distribution centers throughout Gaza. 

A Contested Legacy: Lives Saved or Lives Lost? 

The GHF’s assessment of its own impact differs dramatically from those of international organizations and witnesses. 

The Foundation’s Claims of Success 

In its shutdown announcement, the GHF claimed several achievements: 

• Delivery of 3 million food packages containing the equivalent of more than 187 million meals 

• Creation of an aid distribution model that prevented diversion of supplies to Hamas 

• Demonstration of a “better way to deliver aid to Gazans” 

• Operation at a scale that “reliably and safely provided free meals directly to Palestinian people in Gaza” 

“We have succeeded in our mission of showing there’s a better way to deliver aid to Gazans,” said GHF Executive Director Jon Acree, adding that the organization was “proud to have been the only aid operation that reliably and safely provided free meals directly to Palestinian people in Gaza, at scale and without diversion”. 

The Human Cost Documented by Others 

Multiple international organizations documented severe violence around GHF distribution sites: 

• The UN human rights office recorded at least 859 Palestinians killed while seeking food in the vicinity of GHF sites between May 26 and July 31 

• A Guardian investigation found more than 1,000 Palestinians killed or injured while trying to access GHF sites 

• Between May 25 and June 19 alone, the Red Cross clinic in Rafah treated 1,874 weapon-wounded patients, most injured while trying to access GHF aid 

• In August, 28 UN experts reported “at least 859 Palestinians had been killed around GHF sites” and called for the scheme to be dismantled 

The Israeli military stated that its troops only fired warning shots as a crowd-control measure or when they felt threatened. The GHF denied any violence occurred at the aid sites themselves but acknowledged the potential dangers people faced when traveling to them on foot. 

Contractor Accounts Contradict Official Narratives 

Firsthand accounts from contractors working at the sites painted a different picture of the operations. Security contractors described American guards firing live ammunition and stun grenades as hungry Palestinians scrambled for food. These accounts were supported by video evidence posted to social media. 

One contractor, speaking to the Associated Press, described witnessing ‘barbaric’ and un-American tactics at the Gaza aid sites. These reports contradicted the GHF’s claims of safe operations and the Israeli military’s description of limited warning shots. 

The International Response: Rejection and Condemnation 

The GHF faced near-universal rejection from the established humanitarian community throughout its operations. 

United Nations Opposition 

The UN and its partner agencies refused to cooperate with the GHF system, arguing it was “unethical and unsafe” and contravened “the fundamental humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence”. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric stated that the GHF’s shutdown would have “no impact” on UN operations “because we never worked with them”. 

In August 2025, 28 UN experts appealed for the GHF to be dismantled, calling the scheme an “utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law”. 

Broader Humanitarian Community Backlash 

In July 2025, a coalition of hundreds of aid organizations issued a joint statement titled “Gaza: Starvation or Gunfire – This is Not a Humanitarian Response,” which argued: 

• The model forced Palestinians into an “impossible choice: starve or risk being shot” 

• The weeks following GHF’s launch were “some of the deadliest and most violent since October 2023” 

• The approach “does not adhere to core humanitarian standards and principles” 

The organizations emphasized that “concentrating more than two million people into further confined areas for a chance to feed their families is not a plan to save lives”. 

A Model at Odds With Humanitarian Principles 

The fundamental point of contention between the GHF and traditional aid agencies centered on core humanitarian principles. 

Neutrality and Safety Concerns 

Traditional humanitarian organizations argued that the GHF model was fundamentally flawed because: 

• It channeled desperate civilians into militarized zones, putting them at extreme risk 

• It required aid seekers to make long, dangerous journeys through active conflict zones to reach distribution points 

• It operated inside Israeli military zones with armed contractors, blurring the lines between military and humanitarian operations 

The Sphere Association, which sets minimum standards for humanitarian aid, warned that the GHF’s approach did not adhere to core humanitarian standards and principles. 

Predecessor’s Resignation Speaks Volumes 

The ethical concerns about the GHF’s model were highlighted by the resignation of Jon Acree’s predecessor, who stated it was “not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence”. 

This resignation revealed deep internal misgivings about the fundamental approach, suggesting the very design of the operation compromised established humanitarian standards. 

The Geopolitical Context and Future Implications 

The GHF’s operations and shutdown occur within a broader geopolitical landscape that extends beyond immediate humanitarian concerns. 

Connection to U.S. Policy Objectives 

The U.S. State Department’s support for the GHF aligned with its broader Middle East strategy. Department spokesperson Tommy Piggott explicitly linked the GHF‘s model to ceasefire negotiations, writing that the approach “played a huge role in getting Hamas to the table and achieving a ceasefire” by preventing what they claimed was Hamas’s diversion of aid. 

The GHF stated it would transfer its operations to the U.S.-led Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), which was established to help implement the U.S. Gaza peace plan. Acree stated that the CMCC would be “adopting and expanding the model GHF piloted”. 

Hamas’s Reaction 

Hamas, which has consistently denied Israeli and U.S. allegations that it diverts aid, welcomed the GHF’s closure. A Hamas spokesman, Hazem Qassem, called for the organization to be held accountable, writing that GHF should not escape accountability “after causing the death and injury of thousands of Gazans and covering up the starvation policy practised by the [Israeli] government”. 

The Unanswered Questions 

Despite its shutdown, the GHF leaves behind significant unanswered questions: 

• Accountability for casualties: Who bears responsibility for the hundreds killed near distribution sites? 

• Transparency concerns: The organization never revealed its funding sources or detailed information about its armed contractors 

• Humanitarian precedent: Does the GHF model represent a new approach to crisis response that might be replicated elsewhere? 

• Effectiveness debate: Can an aid model that results in significant civilian casualties be considered successful, regardless of volume delivered? 

Conclusion: A Controversial Legacy 

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s brief existence represents more than just another aid organization’s lifecycle – it embodies a fundamental conflict in approaches to humanitarian crisis response. The central tension between efficiency and principles, between controlling distribution and ensuring safety, remains unresolved. 

As the CMCC takes up the GHF’s model and expands it, the international community watches to see whether the documented casualties and widespread condemnation will lead to adjustments or whether the approach will continue unchanged under a different name. 

The GHF’s legacy may ultimately be that of a cautionary tale – demonstrating how humanitarian aid can become entangled with military and geopolitical objectives, with deadly consequences for the civilians it purports to serve. As one contractor who witnessed the operations asked: When does a humanitarian mission stop being humanitarian? The answer to that question may determine the future of crisis response in conflict zones worldwide.