The “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” an organization with alleged US and Israeli ties, has announced the conclusion of its emergency mission in the Gaza Strip. This decision comes after months of controversy and international criticism surrounding its operations and perceived humanitarian impact.
In a statement, the Foundation claimed to have “successfully completed its emergency mission in Gaza, providing over 187 million free meals directly to civilians.” They asserted that their humanitarian operation ensured the safe delivery of food aid to Palestinian families. The Foundation further stated it held discussions with international humanitarian organizations and the US-overseen Civil-Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat, southern Israel, to “monitor the truce in Gaza.”
According to the statement, the Foundation’s operational model will be “expanded by other partners,” as quoted by Executive Director John Acree. The Foundation was tasked with food aid distribution last May, following Israeli restrictions on the operations of international agencies. However, UN experts and aid organizations have strongly criticized this mechanism, deeming it inadequate and posing risks to civilians.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire while attempting to obtain aid from the Foundation’s distribution centers. UN special rapporteurs previously called for the immediate dissolution of the Foundation and accountability for its leadership, alleging it was “exploited for covert military and geopolitical purposes.”
The Foundation operated four distribution centers in Gaza, compared to the 400 run by the UN aid system. Numerous reports accused the Foundation of failing to protect civilians, with some centers becoming “death traps.”
The announcement of the mission’s end follows weeks after a fragile ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, which included prisoner and detainee exchanges, amidst continued Israeli violations of the agreement. The Foundation’s role and impact remain a subject of intense debate. Critics argue its presence exacerbated existing vulnerabilities.
