Humanitarian aid serves violent interests

Humanitarian aid has become one of the most prominent and shameful means through which international institutions attempt to mitigate the consequences of military aggression. Israel’s purported concept of aid has obviously fared no better. It must be said again that Israel’s designation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) can be summarised into: starve and be murdered, or starve, be displaced and possibly murdered. 

At the Arab League Summit, Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated that the UN “will not participate in any so-called aid operation that does not adhere to international law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality.” Guterres was referring to Israel’s expansion of its genocide – military operations in UN rhetoric – and which ties directly to the GHF’s role in providing limited humanitarian aid. 

The GHF is under scrutiny from Switzerland, after Swiss NGO TRIAL International filed two submissions to investigate the private agency’s compliance with Swiss and international law. 

Philip Grant, TRIAL International’s Executive Director, declared, “The planned use of private security companies leads to a risky militarization of aid, which is not justified in a context where the United Nations and humanitarian NGOs have the impartiality, resources and expertise necessary to distribute this aid without delay to the civilian population,” said Philip Grant, Executive Director of TRIAL International.

The resignation of GHF’s Executive Director Jake Woods allegedly occurred for similar reasons. “it is clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, which I will not abandon,” Woods explained. 

OPINION: Once again, Netanyahu plays the victim card

Reports in Ha’aretz uncovered a murkier web of private contractors that speaks more of military veterans, business people and former CIA officials, than it does of the actual concerns regarding humanitarian aid. Additionally, Israel’s role is emphasised as actively engaging in the process. According to Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, “Together with the U.S. – mostly the U.S. – we created a company comprised of ex-Green Berets who’ve worked with USAID and distributed humanitarian aid around the world, most recently in Haiti.” A spokesman for GHF stated that the agency is “an independent foundation”, yet the Ha’aretz report states that the GHF would raise funds for the logistics company Safe Reach Solutions, which is tasked with delivering aid in Gaza alongside the private security company UG Solutions.

Obliterating the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) only exacerbated the humanitarian deprivation. At the same time, what did the international community really intend for UNRWA, in the absence of a political solution that would have been based on decolonisation? The humanitarian paradigm was always weak, and for anyone involved in international law violations, that weakness proved a strength for bigger might. Not just for Israel, but also its international accomplices, including the UN. 

We have seen starving Palestinians, Palestinians killed while waiting for aid, and the more mainstream and picturesque in a macabre way – photos of Palestinians waiting for their meagre portion of food to be served. This cannot only be attributed to the GHF – as with all other Israeli violations, there are precedents. And the precedent in this case comes from the international humanitarian paradigm that failed Palestinians since its inception. Humanitarian aid is supposed to be temporary, but the international community coerced Palestinians into permanent refugee status and, as a result, permanent recipients of a failed humanitarian plan. 

In between UNRWA and private contractors masquerading as humanitarian agencies, humanitarian aid still only serves the designers, not the Palestinian people.

BLOG: Will the international community rethink its support for Israel’s security narrative?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.