Israel's GHF Strategy comes into Focus : Tom McDermott

The Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF) announced it will begin distributing food in Gaza on Monday, May 26th, even as the organization was rocked by the sudden resignation on Sunday night of its CEO, Jake Wood. In a brief statement, Wood said that he was resigning because he could not continue without abandoning his humanitarian principles. He went on to state that it was “not possible” to implement a new Israeli-backed aid system in the enclave while remaining neutral and independent.

The origins of the GHF had remained murky until Saturday, when The New York Times published the results of a major investigation. The report reveals that GHF was part of a plan conceived by Israeli military reservists, strategic planners, and private security firms in the early weeks of the war in late 2023. Though shelved for months, the plan was revived in February 2025, when GHF was announced as a private, independent foundation based in Switzerland. The Times investigation makes clear, however, that the GHF is neither private nor independent—it is an Israeli initiative, backed by the U.S. and funded by undisclosed sources.

It is unclear whether the Times report directly influenced Jake Wood’s decision to resign. What is clear is that two of the GHF’s remaining senior figures are former CIA officers, including a former chief of CIA operations in Afghanistan.

Ethnic Cleansing

GHF is one part of a broader strategy aimed at depopulating Gaza while establishing permanent Israeli control. The first phase involves pushing Gaza’s population into a southern “humanitarian zone,” clearing the north and central areas for military operations against Hamas and other militants. Food aid acts as bait—drawing civilians southward, while military strikes drive their movement.

For Israel’s far right, the ultimate goal is permanent removal. Earlier this month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated that once Palestinians reach the “humanitarian zone,” they will “leave in great numbers” to third countries.

Sidelining the UN

The revived plan’s central premise centers on the dismantling" the UN’s longstanding role in Gaza’s aid infrastructure. For years, Israeli officials have accused UNRWA of enabling Hamas by allowing it to intercept or tax humanitarian supplies, bolstering its image as a provider to a desperate population.

The initial tactic was to discredit UNRWA in the eyes of its Western donors. And for a time, it worked. Many donor governments initially suspended funding.  But over time, it became clear that UNRWA, for all its flaws, remained the only viable institution with the operational scale and local networks to meet Palestinian needs. As other international agencies expanded their visibility on the ground, Israel’s strategic concern widened—from UNRWA specifically to the entire international aid apparatus. The international humanitarian presence had become an obstacle to its campaign to reshape Gaza’s future.

Recruiting

Safe Reach Solutions—a private U.S. firm contracted to operate under the GHF umbrella—has begun recruiting staff with NGO and UN backgrounds, individuals with deep experience in humanitarian operations. When asked whether the UN was concerned that former staff might join GHF, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson offered a measured response expressing hope that anyone who had worked for the UN would continue to uphold the same principles with which they had served.  The remark underscored growing unease within the UN system about the poaching and possible repurposing of its personnel to serve politically driven operations.

Looting as basis for claims

Reports of looting and black-market diversion of aid have fueled Israel’s claims that humanitarian supplies under UN oversight are frequently seized by Hamas or other actors. But the scale and nature of these incidents remain unclear. While some may be coordinated diversions, others appear to be acts of desperation—hungry civilians storming trucks and warehouses after weeks of deprivation.

Palestinian sources allege that Israeli forces have, at times, facilitated or enabled looting in order to manufacture a narrative of chaos and dysfunction under UN-led humanitarian operations. Among the more serious accusations is that the IDF brought a former jihadist into northern Gaza to act as an agent provocateur, deliberately inciting the looting of aid convoys. 

These incidents are cited by Israel as evidence of systemic failure by the UN to secure supplies and keep them out of the control of Hamas and other militant groups—thus justifying Israel’s demand that all food distribution be placed exclusively under its own control and carried out on its terms.

Replace all international aid?

The Gaza Humanitarian Fund was conceived not to complement existing aid systems, but to replace them. Its central aim is to remove the United Nations from operational control and place all humanitarian delivery under Israeli oversight.

More recently, however, Israeli officials have signaled some tactical flexibility—suggesting that the UN may continue to manage non-food assistance such as medical supplies and health services.  It is not clear to what degree this position reflects the fact that GHF is not equipped to handle anything beyond food distribution. 

Is privitized humanitarian aid the future?

The GHF represents a test case for a new model of privatized humanitarian assistance—administered and financed by a single country, with explicit political and military goals. It stands in sharp contrast to the international humanitarian system traditionally led by the UN,  guided by neutrality, impartiality, and multilateral consensus.

In another era, such a model of private humanitarian aid would have been dismissed as a stand-alone not to be repeated. But in today’s context—where major donors are retreating from multilateralism and showing declining commitment to humanitarian principles—the rise of something like GHF may no longer be the exception but a sign of things to come.

The long run

This raises a more fundamental question: Are Israel and the United States prepared to assume long-term responsibility for Gaza’s civilian population? Feeding over two million people is only the beginning. Will they also provide healthcare, maintain water and sanitation systems, and support a functioning school system?

Under international law, as the occupying power, Israel bears full responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilians. That obligation cannot legally be outsourced—not to the UN, and certainly not to a private foundation.

Yet Israel and the U.S. have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to ignore international legal norms when politically expedient. What happens if they simply refuse to meet their obligations? What if they don't feed the population, or allow others to do so freely? The risk is clear: the UN may eventually have no choice but to re-engage—not as a willing partner in a political project, but as a last-resort guarantor against starvation on a mass scale.