The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: A Necessary Effort, Not a Politicised Sham

A recent statement published on ReliefWeb by a group of humanitarian and human rights organisations condemns the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as a “dangerous politicised sham.” They accuse it of enabling collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and acting as a fig leaf for Israeli control. But when these claims are examined carefully, they collapse under the weight of misrepresentation, double standards, and an astonishing absence of context, especially the continued war crimes and genocidal intentions of Hamas.

This article offers a full response to the accusations, laying bare the deeply flawed logic behind them and exposing the ideological bias that appears to run through what claims to be a neutral humanitarian analysis.

The Reality of Local Exclusion

The statement begins by criticising the GHF for excluding Palestinian participation in its design. But given the reality of Hamas’s governance in Gaza, a proscribed terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction, and the high level of public support it enjoys locally, there are few if any genuinely independent Palestinian actors to work with. Attempting to partner with civil society groups under Hamas control would be tantamount to legitimising terrorism and placing aid at direct risk of diversion.

Moreover, any individuals or organisations seeking to cooperate with outside efforts independently of Hamas would likely face severe consequences. In such a context, not involving local actors is not a design failure; it is a matter of operational necessity and ethical responsibility.

The Smokescreen That Isn’t

The authors call the GHF a “cynical sideshow,” but this ignores the extraordinary fact that Israel continues to facilitate aid into Gaza during an active war—a war in which it is being attacked with rockets and its civilians are being held hostage. This is not common wartime behaviour. Most nations at war with an enemy openly committed to their destruction would not allow humanitarian access at all.

It is also notable that Egypt has also closed its border to Gaza during the conflict, yet faces none of the criticism directed at Israel. The accusation that GHF is a political stunt ignores these basic wartime realities and smacks of selective outrage.

No Famine, No Policy of Starvation

One of the most egregious claims in the statement is that Israel is “intentionally starving” the population. This is contradicted by both field realities and independent analyses. A recent review by the Institute for National Security Studies shows that the UN and other organisations have overestimated pre-war food security and understated the quantity of aid entering Gaza.

Furthermore, the population of Gaza has increased during the war—a demographic reality completely inconsistent with conditions of famine. There is no credible evidence that Israel is using starvation as a strategy. Instead, what is clear is that Hamas has repeatedly stolen aid, obstructed its delivery, and used food as a tool to maintain control. Blaming Israel for the consequences of Hamas’s corruption is dishonest at best.

Centralised Distribution Is Necessary, Not Malicious

The statement takes issue with GHF using controlled entry points such as Kerem Shalom and the Port of Ashdod. But this is a wartime necessity. Any aid provider—whether Israeli, UN, or international NGO—would need to operate through secure, controlled channels to prevent aid theft or redirection by Hamas. Claiming that this process violates humanitarian principles shows either wilful ignorance or deliberate distortion.

The real risk to humanitarian access in Gaza does not come from centralised checkpoints. It comes from the armed group that loots convoys and hides weapons in civilian areas.

No Evidence of Exclusion or Ethnic Cleansing

The accusation that GHF is part of a plan to “abandon” over a million people to famine is absurd. The GHF is scaling up delivery in stages—a standard practice in all humanitarian emergencies. There is no evidence of a plan to exclude parts of the population. Nor is there any link between GHF and political statements made by individual Israeli officials about resettlement. To conflate logistical phasing with ethnic cleansing is not only dishonest—it is obscene.

Genocide Rhetoric as Propaganda

To accuse Israel or its humanitarian partners of ethnic cleansing while ignoring the fact that Hamas is explicitly committed to the genocide of Jews is grotesque. The only actual case of forced displacement in Gaza’s recent history was Israel’s 2005 disengagement, when it forcibly removed its own Jewish citizens. The ethnic cleansing charge belongs to Hamas’s playbook—not Israel’s.

Upholding Principles Under Fire

The GHF has been accused of violating humanitarian neutrality and independence. Yet it is Israel and the United States who are funding and enabling aid delivery—at cost to themselves, and with no obligation to do so. If those same actors weren’t providing aid, they’d be accused of war crimes. That they do so, even under threat, is not a violation of principle. It is proof of a moral commitment to civilian welfare, even amidst war.

Aid as Coercion? Nonsense.

The statement implies that humanitarian aid coordinated by Israel is a form of coercion. This is a self-defeating argument. If Israel delivers aid, it is condemned as manipulative. If it doesn’t, it is accused of starvation. This is not a good-faith analysis—it is a rhetorical trap designed to demonise Israel regardless of its actions.

Meanwhile, the true coercion comes from Hamas, which uses hospitals to store weapons, prevents civilians from evacuating, and loots convoys for its own fighters. That is the real corruption of humanitarian space.

The Neutrality Double Bind

Critics argue that GHF cannot be neutral if it operates under Israeli coordination. But this is absurd. The UN itself relies on the same crossings. If neutrality means excluding Israel, then no aid would reach Gaza at all. Demanding that Israel relinquish all involvement while holding it solely responsible for conditions on the ground is not just bad policy—it’s a moral absurdity.

The Root Cause Is Hamas

Calls for structural change and “real action” ignore the core truth: the root cause of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis is Hamas. The war could end tomorrow if Hamas surrendered, released the hostages, and ceased rocket attacks. That the authors of the statement fail to even mention Hamas’s crimes—against both Israelis and their own people—renders the entire piece ethically bankrupt.

Conclusion: A Case Study in Ideological Bias

This statement, published by so-called neutral humanitarian actors and promoted by ReliefWeb, which is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), reveals something deeper than just bad analysis. It is a case study in institutional bias and moral corruption.

OCHA claims to be neutral. Yet it gives a platform to organisations who accuse Israel of genocide while ignoring Hamas’s actual, documented war crimes. It promotes rhetoric that would deny Israel the right to defend its citizens, the right to provide humanitarian aid, and the right to respond to a genocidal terrorist threat.

The GHF is not perfect. No wartime humanitarian effort ever is. But it is delivering aid, saving lives, and doing so while rockets are still flying. To vilify that effort is not just misguided. It is morally backwards.