Israel’s new aid delivery system for Gaza is sparking outrage. Why is it so problematic?

Some 2.1 million Gazans are facing critical hunger levels, with many at risk of famine following Israel’s 11-week blockade on aid intended to pressure Hamas.

According to the United Nations, 57 children have already died^[1] from malnutrition since the aid blockade began on March 2. A further 14,000 children under 5 years old are at risk^[2] of severe cases of malnutrition over the next year.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu permitted a limited number of aid trucks^[3] into Gaza amid increasing pressure from allies who have drawn a line at images of starving children^[4].

However, Israel is controversially planning to transfer responsibility^[5] for distributing aid in Gaza through a new system that would sideline the UN and other aid agencies that have been working there for decades.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres swiftly rejected^[6] Israel’s new aid distribution system in Gaza, saying it breaches international law and humanitarian principles^[7].

In a joint statement, two dozen countries^[8], including the UK, many European Union member states, Australia, Canada and Japan, have supported the UN’s position on the new model. The signatories said it won’t deliver aid effectively at the scale required, and would link aid to political and military objectives.

The UK, Canada and France have further threatened to take “concrete actions^[9]” to pressure Israel to cease its military offence and lift restrictions on aid.

And in another blow to the credibility of the new system, the head of the newly established Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which will oversee the distribution of aid, resigned^[10] on Monday. He cited concerns over a lack of adherence to “humanitarian principles”.

So, how will would this new aid delivery system work, and why is it so problematic?

A military-led system with deep flaws

Israel has relied on unsubstantiated claims of large-scale aid diversion by Hamas to justify taking control over aid delivery in Gaza. The UN and its humanitarian partners continue to refute such claims, publicly sharing details of their end-to-end monitoring systems^[11].

Yet, the new aid delivery initiative^[12] is vague on important details.

Several reports^[13] have revealed^[14] the plan would establish four secure distribution sites for aid under Israeli military control in southern and central Gaza.

Security would be provided by private military contractors, such as Safe Reach Solutions^[15], run by a former CIA officer, while the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation would oversee the distribution of food.

There is little clarity beyond this on who is behind^[16] the new system and who is funding it.

The initiative has provoked strong reactions from the UN and the wider humanitarian aid system.

Senior aid officials have underlined the fact the international aid system cannot support a military-led initiative that would breach international law^[17] and be incompatible with humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence.

There are also concerns the four distribution hubs would require individuals to travel long distances^[18] to collect and carry heavy packages. This could leave female-headed households, people with disabilities, those who are ill and the elderly at greater risk of exclusion and exploitation.

In addition, a leaked UN memo^[19] reportedly expressed concern over UN involvement in the initiative, saying the organisation could be “implicated in delivering a system that falls short of Israel’s legal responsibilities as an occupying power”.

There are further concerns the UN could be implicated in atrocity crimes, including a risk of genocide^[20] through its participation in the system, setting a dangerous precedent for future crises.

Tom Fletcher, the UN relief chief, has called^[21] the plan “a deliberate distraction” and “a fig leaf for further violence and displacement”.

Other rights groups have condemned the mandatory collection of biometric data^[22], including facial recognition scans, at the distribution sites. This would make aid conditional on compliance with surveillance. It would also expand Israel’s controversial use of facial recognition technology^[23] to track and monitor Palestinians throughout Gaza.

And famine expert Alex de Waal^[24] claims Israel has “taken a page from the colonial war handbooks” in weaponising food aid in pursuit of military victory.

He argues the planned quantities of food aid will be insufficient and lack the specialised feeding necessary for malnourished children, in addition to clean water and electricity.

What has not been stated but can be implied from the strong resistance to the new system lacking humanitarian expertise: the lack of good faith on Israel’s part. The Israeli government continues to pursue an elusive military victory at the expense of the rules and norms intended to preserve humanity in war.

Wider pattern of behaviour

The UN’s rebuke of the plan should be interpreted through a wider pattern of Israeli government behaviour undermining the international aid system and its role in upholding respect for humanitarian principles.

These fundamental principles include respect for humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational independence. As the joint statement^[25] by 24 nations on aid to Gaza this month said:

Humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world and should be applied consistently in every war zone.

International humanitarian law requires member states to respect – and ensure respect – for the rules of war. This includes taking all feasible measures^[26] to influence the parties engaged in a conflict to respect humanitarian law.

Likewise, the Genocide Convention requires member states to take measures^[27] to prevent and punish genocide beyond their jurisdictions.

As Fletcher, the UN relief chief, reminded^[28] the UN Security Council earlier this month, this hasn’t been done in past cases of large-scale violations of international human rights, such as in Srebrenica (in the former Yugoslavia) and Rwanda.

He said reviews of the UN’s conduct in cases like these

[…] pointed to our collective failure to speak to the scale of violations while they were committed.

While humanitarians are best placed to deliver aid, greater collective political action is what’s needed. Pressure now falls on all UN member states use their levers of influence to protect civilians and prevent the further weaponisation of aid at this critical time.

References

1. ^{^} 57 children have already died (news.un.org)
2. ^{^} 14,000 children under 5 years old are at risk (www.ipcinfo.org)
3. ^{^} limited number of aid trucks (theconversation.com)
4. ^{^} drawn a line at images of starving children (www.newyorker.com)
5. ^{^} to transfer responsibility (www.nytimes.com)
6. ^{^} swiftly rejected (www.reuters.com)
7. ^{^} breaches international law and humanitarian principles (www.youtube.com)
8. ^{^} two dozen countries (www.foreignminister.gov.au)
9. ^{^} concrete actions (www.gov.uk)
10. ^{^} resigned (www.reuters.com)
11. ^{^} end-to-end monitoring systems (www.unocha.org)
12. ^{^} new aid delivery initiative (ynet-pic1.yit.co.il)
13. ^{^} Several reports (www.nytimes.com)
14. ^{^} have revealed (www.thenewhumanitarian.org)
15. ^{^} Safe Reach Solutions (skylineforhuman.org)
16. ^{^} who is behind (www.timesofisrael.com)
17. ^{^} breach international law (www.gov.uk)
18. ^{^} travel long distances (www.nytimes.com)
19. ^{^} leaked UN memo (www.thenewhumanitarian.org)
20. ^{^} risk of genocide (www.ohchr.org)
21. ^{^} called (news.un.org)
22. ^{^} mandatory collection of biometric data (skylineforhuman.org)
23. ^{^} Israel’s controversial use of facial recognition technology (www.nytimes.com)
24. ^{^} Alex de Waal (unherd.com)
25. ^{^} joint statement (www.foreignminister.gov.au)
26. ^{^} includes taking all feasible measures (blogs.icrc.org)
27. ^{^} requires member states to take measures (www.un.org)
28. ^{^} reminded (www.un.org)