The controversial US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has announced it is winding down its aid operations in Gaza, claiming the successful completion of its emergency mission. The move comes amid ongoing criticism over the safety and ethics of its distribution methods, which bypassed traditional UN channels.
The GHF, established in May 2025 with US and Israeli support, aimed to provide aid directly to Gazans while circumventing the United Nations. On Monday, the foundation stated it was ending its operations after nearly six months, citing the achievement of its goals and the implementation of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This decision follows the suspension of its distribution sites six weeks ago when the ceasefire took effect, shifting aid efforts to other channels.
The foundation began distributing food in Gaza on May 26, operating four sites in southern and central areas managed by US private security contractors within Israeli military zones. This model was designed to prevent aid diversion by Hamas, but it immediately faced opposition from UN agencies and human rights groups, who argued it violated core humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. The GHF’s approach required Palestinians to travel long distances to militarized zones, increasing risks.
Significant violence marred the GHF’s operations, with UN reports indicating at least 859 Palestinians were killed near its sites between May and July, mostly by Israeli fire during chaotic aid distributions. Israel maintained that its troops fired warning shots at individuals behaving threateningly, while the GHF denied any shootings occurred at its locations and accused the UN of relying on false statistics from Hamas-run authorities. These incidents highlighted the dangers of channeling desperate civilians into controlled zones.
Despite the controversies, the GHF touted its achievements, reporting the delivery of three million aid packages equivalent to over 187 million meals. Executive Director Jon Acree emphasized that the foundation demonstrated a viable alternative to UN-led efforts, free from Hamas interference, and played a role in facilitating the ceasefire. The US State Department echoed this sentiment, with spokesperson Tommy Piggott stating the model pressured Hamas into negotiations by reducing aid theft.
Reactions to the shutdown were divided: Hamas welcomed the closure, calling for accountability for the harm caused to Palestinians, while UN officials noted the GHF’s departure would not affect their operations as they never collaborated with it. The ceasefire agreement now prioritizes aid distribution through UN agencies and the Red Crescent, with the US-led Civil-Military Coordination Centre set to expand on aspects of the GHF model. However, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric stressed that current aid levels remain insufficient for Gaza’s 2.1 million people.
As the GHF winds down, its legacy sparks debates over the effectiveness and ethics of bypassing established humanitarian systems in conflict zones. The foundation’s leaders indicated readiness to reconstitute if new needs arise, but the focus shifts to broader international efforts under the ceasefire framework, aiming to address Gaza’s deep humanitarian crises while navigating complex geopolitical tensions.
