U.S. and Israeli Backed Gaza Aid Program Ends Operations After Backlash

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an organization backed by the United States and Israel to deliver food in Gaza outside United Nations mechanisms, said on November 24 that it was ending its operations after roughly six months of activity and intense controversy. Launched in late May, the foundation said it had delivered some 187 million meals since inception, but framed the closure as the completion of a temporary pilot and said its methods would be taken up by a U.S. led multinational coordination centre tied to a proposed plan to end the Gaza war.

The program’s trajectory exposed sharp tensions between expedited, donor driven relief efforts and established humanitarian norms. Critics and some European governments had objected from the outset to bypassing UN agencies and long standing aid groups, warning that parallel structures risked undermining coordination, accountability and access. Those criticism intensified after reports and human rights groups said hundreds of Palestinians were killed near some distribution sites when people attempting to reach food were shot. The foundation suspended activities during the October 10 ceasefire as the violence and scrutiny escalated.

The scale of the operation was notable. Delivering 187 million meals in about six months implies an average distribution on the order of one million meals per day, a rate that underscored the logistical capability assembled but also magnified operational risks. Mass movements of hungry civilians toward concentrated distribution points repeatedly produced chaotic conditions that nongovernmental aid groups and independent monitors warned could be lethal without robust crowd management and clear civilian protection measures.

Reactions to the closure were mixed and politically charged. U.S. officials thanked the foundation for lessons learned and indicated that aspects of its approach would be incorporated into a broader multinational mechanism intended to expand aid while anchoring delivery to a diplomatic plan for Gaza. Hamas called for prosecution related to the deadly incidents, and some aid organizations and foreign governments insisted that the episode demonstrated why multilateral systems exist to coordinate relief and mitigate harm.

Beyond immediate safety concerns, the decision to wind down GHF highlights a larger shift in the humanitarian landscape since the outbreak of war. Donors have shown growing willingness to experiment with alternative delivery models that promise speed and control, but those models confront practical limits when operating in densely populated, contested environments. The result has been a contest between operational urgency and the institutional safeguards that underpin neutral humanitarian action.

Accountability questions are likely to follow. Human rights groups and investigators will press for clarity on what went wrong at distribution sites and whether planning failures or inadequate coordination contributed to the fatalities. For governments considering similar ad hoc mechanisms, the episode will be a cautionary case study about reputational risk and the political costs of bypassing established agencies.

As Washington and allied partners move to institutionalize lessons through a multinational coordination centre, policy makers will need to reconcile the imperatives of rapid delivery with stricter oversight, transparent reporting and integration with civilian led aid organizations. The outcome will shape not only relief flows in Gaza, but broader debates about how states deliver humanitarian assistance in future conflicts.