The following statement was written by NCF Research Officer Dylan Clarke-Stock and submitted as a report to the United Nations General Assembly under the auspices of the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council. It warns against the militarisation of humanitarian aid operations and recommends preventative measures to be established.
A copy of the report as submitted to the UN can be found on this link. The full text of the report follows below:
Setting a Dangerous Precedent: The Weaponisation of Aid Distribution in Gaza
The Next Century Foundation calls upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to formally recognise the misuse of humanitarian aid in Gaza as a violation of International Humanitarian Law and to highlight the risks of setting such operational precedents. We also urge the Council to establish measures, in coordination with member states, to prevent the militarisation or politicisation of humanitarian operations, and to safeguard the impartiality of humanitarian aid distribution in conflict zones.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
The aid crisis in Gaza has raised a range of concerns regarding the delivery of aid; specifically the weaponisation of humanitarian relief and the lack of impartiality in distribution mechanisms utilised. If accepted as precedent, this could have dangerous implications for future conflicts.
On Monday the 24th of November 2025 the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation announced that it would be ceasing operations. An announcement made by the Executive Director, John Acree, and posted to X and the organisation’s website, read:
“We are proud to have been the only aid operation that reliably and safely provided free meals directly to Palestinian people in Gaza.”
The statement continues:
“We built a new model that worked, saved lives, and restored dignity to civilians in Gaza.”
While presented as a success, these claims are profoundly misleading. Humanitarian aid must at all times respect the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, and the operational model of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation undermined these principles. If emulated this could set a precedent that erodes compliance with International Humanitarian
Law for the future of aid distribution.
Ethical issues
The concerns regarding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation lie not only in its operational outcomes, but fundamentally in the model upon which the organisation was established.
Incorporated in the United States of America and Sweden as a not-for-profit organisation, it was founded with an initial donation of $100 million, without public disclosure regarding the source, conditions, or governance of these funds. Prominent Knesset Members have stated that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was funded by the intelligence services of Israel.
These claims were reinforced by independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. They stated that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was “created by Israel inFebruary 2025, with US support.” Such backing raises potential conflicts of interest that
directly compromise impartiality.
Even if these claims are not fully substantiated, the lack of transparency alone regarding donors, financial structures, and governance significantly limits the international community’s ability to ensure accountability or monitor compliance with International Humanitarian Law.
Impartiality lies at the heart of humanitarian action. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a private organisation, with structural links to private security and logistics firms, and therefore introduces commercial and profit-driven dynamics into a space that needs to remain neutral and independent. This privatisation of the humanitarian landscape, creates an environment in
which aid distribution may be influenced by financial incentives. It risks transforming the humanitarian landscape into a market economy and an extension of military strategy rather than a needs-based humanitarian response.
These concerns were also acknowledged internally by the organisation’s former Executive Director, Jake Wood, who resigned in May 2025, stating that:
“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.”
Despite this, operations proceeded, and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation´s subsequent conduct confirmed its inability to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles.
Operational context of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid distribution
Between the 2nd of March and the 18th of May 2025, Israel enforced a near complete blockade on aid entering Gaza. During this period, 400 UN operated aid distribution sites were dismantled and replaced by four Gaza Humanitarian Foundation operated distribution points. Three sites were located in Rafah, in areas subject to Israel Defense Forces evacuation orders, with one site established in Gaza City. Unlike other established agencies, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation operated with comparatively unimpeded access, becoming the primary distributor of humanitarian assistance in areas of Gaza that were otherwise
inaccessible.
The reduced number and the location of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sites forced civilians seeking humanitarian assistance to undertake long and hazardous journeys through highly militarised areas, including crossing the Netzarim Corridor, an area under Israel’s military control and described by multiple Israel Defense Forces whistleblowers as a “kill zone”. This operational design not only exposed civilians to serious and foreseeable risks but aligned with broader dynamics of forced displacement.
All Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites were heavily militarised, with security provided by the private contractors, Safe Reach Solutions, and UG Solutions, alongside Israel Defense Forces control of access routes. Multiple reports, including video evidence, indicate that both Israel Defense Forces personnel and private security contractors opened fire on civilians seeking aid. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that at least 2,256 civilians were killed in the vicinity of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation operated aid sites between May and September 2025.
Despite the fact that this operation exacerbated civilian displacement and contributed to an already catastrophic civilian death toll, senior representatives of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have publicly characterised the mission as one that “reliably and safely provided” aid, and that “saved lives and restored dignity to civilians in Gaza”. Such characterisation misrepresent the humanitarian impact of the operation, it is therefore essential that this experience is critically examined and explicitly rejected as a model for future standards or norms governing humanitarian relief.
Incompatibility with the Geneva Convention
The principle of impartiality in the distribution of humanitarian aid is clearly articulated in Articles 59 and 61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Although this case, and therefore the specific Articles used in evidence, concern an occupied territory, the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and civilian protection apply in all circumstances.
At the time the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was operating in Gaza, the civilian population of the Gaza was demonstrably inadequately supplied. On 15 August 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (a mechanism established by an alliance of 21 aid organisations) declared a famine in Gaza, directly citing Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.
“If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.”
It further specifies that such schemes:
“May be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations.”
Israel is the Occupying Power in this context because it controls access and egress. Israel was therefore obligated not only to consent, but to facilitate impartial humanitarian assistance. Instead, Israel effectively dismantled the established United Nations led aid coordination mechanism and replaced it with a system operated by a private entity operating in close coordination with the occupying power, and secured by Israel’s military forces. This model fundamentally undermines the principle of impartiality, a core tenet of the Geneva Convention designed to safeguard the safety, dignity, and survival of civilian populations.
Article 59 further stipulates that:
“Consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.”
This is reinforced in Article 70(1) of Additional Protocol I (1977) which requires:
“Relief actions which are humanitarian and impartial in character and conducted without any
adverse distinction.”
This safeguard exists to prevent an occupying force from instrumentalizing humanitarian aid for military, political, or logistical advantage. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation model, which was militarised and required civilians to congregate at centralised locations, is in direct breach of these provisions. It effectively transformed aid distribution into a mechanism
serving the security and strategic interests of the occupying power.
This constitutes a clear misuse of humanitarian relief, contrary to Articles 59 and 61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as the appropriate additional protocols, and represents the weaponisation of humanitarian aid. As such, the operational precedent set by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation cannot be accepted or replicated in future conflicts without eroding
foundational principles of the Geneva Convention.
Conclusion
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation serves as a cautionary example. Its operations in Gaza fell outside of the Geneva Convention, and directly contributed to over 2,000 civilian deaths and likely displaced numerous others. Aid distribution must remain humanitarian and impartial in character. Private mechanisms enabling the use of humanitarian operations to further military or political objectives must be prevented from becoming standard practice. We urge the UNHRC to formally reject the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation model, establish further safeguards, and ensure future humanitarian operations respect the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.
