Opinion: Why we don’t mix humanitarian aid with military operations

Blurring the lines between humanitarian aid and military operations, as is currently happening in Gaza, is not only illegal and unethical — it is also deeply ineffective, harmful, and puts civilians and aid workers at greater risk. As someone who has worked in global health and humanitarian aid for over 20 years — including in conflict-affected regions and alongside military forces — I’ve seen the critical difference between aid delivered by humanitarian principles and aid used for military aims. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution operation is a tragic illustration of the harmful outcomes of mixing humanitarian and military operations. The U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was established only months ago as a militarized, opaque, and ethically compromised aid system. From the outset, it was clear for many of us in the humanitarian sector that this model would undermine humanitarian principles, force mass displacement, and endanger civilians — forcing those still able to walk to travel miles through Gaza’s ruins to fenced-in distribution sites, all south of Gaza City. Thought up and managed by former U.S. intelligence officials and business leaders in coordination with Israeli authorities, GHF replaces legitimate aid efforts with armed security and restricted hubs — what critics — including the United Nations and Oxfam — describe as “engineered scarcity” and a “system of control.” Effective aid distribution requires local knowledge, credibility with communities, coordination with local groups, and expertise in logistics, mapping, and urgent health and supply needs. Just as I wouldn’t know how to operate field artillery, armed security contractors likely lack the training for effective aid delivery. News reports are pointing to a militarized humanitarian operation that is, in fact, doing harm: Since GHF operations started, there have been reports of multiple shootings and fatalities of Palestinians by the Israeli military at or near aid distribution points for several consecutive days. Beyond these tragedies, this operation is also on a scale that is insufficient to attend to humanitarian needs throughout the entire Gaza Strip. The consequences are devastating: children continue to die from starvation and preventable infections, mothers are unable to safely give birth or breastfeed newborns, and thousands more are lost to human-made shortages of food, medicine, and supplies. Blending military and humanitarian roles also endangers real aid workers, eroding neutrality. It’s no surprise that the U.N. and legitimate aid agencies condemned GHF and refused to cooperate from the start, and that high-profile humanitarian professionals have distanced themselves from the operation. GHF’s executive director resigned just before its aid distribution launch, citing conflicts with basic humanitarian principles. In its early days in February 2025, a GHF press release made questionable claims of ties to respected humanitarian leaders. It listed Nate Mook, former CEO of World Central Kitchen, as a board member — yet Mook told NBC News he had never been involved. The memo also named former World Food Programme chief David Beasley as a board member “to be finalized,” but Beasley told CNN he was also “not currently involved” with GHF. How GHF operation breaks international humanitarian law The principle that humanitarian aid must be delivered impartially and without distinction is a core tenet of international humanitarian law, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Denying aid to civilians is a war crime, according to the International Criminal Court. Civilians do not lose their protected status for refusing to leave their homes. As the occupying power, Israel has a legal duty to protect Gaza’s civilians wherever they remain, ensuring access to food, water, and medical care. The location of all GHF aid distribution points south of Gaza City constitutes a breach of these principles. In the International Court of Justice’s genocide case against Israel, the court issued provisional measures in March 2024, ordering Israel to “take immediate and effective measures” to provide humanitarian aid and basic services to prevent famine and suffering. Israel has continuously ignored this binding order. Now, with the GHF aid distribution operation, I believe Israel and the United States have instead implemented a calculated strategy to restrict survival to a few Gazans who fully comply with forced displacement. Indeed, considering past rhetoric from Israeli authorities on plans not to allow residents from the northern Gaza Strip to return home, critics say the GHF aid operation is part of a plan to forcibly displace Palestinian populations. Using humanitarian aid to lure civilians into areas of control is also a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forced deportation or transfer of civilians “regardless of their motive,” and makes clear that permanent transfer for purposes such as ethnic cleansing is unlawful. While limited evacuations for safety may be permitted, international tribunals have ruled that displacement is not justified when the crisis prompting it results from the perpetrator’s own unlawful actions. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia further found that threats, coercion, and “the absence of genuine choice” render such displacement illegal. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant are already wanted for crimes against humanity and war crimes, forcible transfer is a crime. Why we don’t mix humanitarian and military operations The strict legal separation between humanitarian aid and military operations is meant to protect aid workers and allow humanitarian organizations to safely deliver food, run field hospitals, and carry out their work. The World Health Organization and U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs emphasize that programs such as these should be civilian-led and “based on assessed and documented needs,” and not political or military agendas. Violations of these laws and norms have historically endangered aid workers by undermining the perceived neutrality of health workers and other humanitarian players. For example, the CIA’s covert use of a hepatitis B vaccination campaign in Pakistan to locate Osama bin Laden severely undermined trust in health workers. At the time, WHO and Médecins Sans Frontières condemned the CIA’s actions, warning that instrumentalizing humanitarian work for intelligence or military purposes violates international norms and places front-line workers at risk. It is worth reminding ourselves that legitimate aid agencies operate under principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. Furthermore, humanitarian response in settings such as Gaza requires a nuanced understanding of population needs, local partners and customs, safe access corridors, and rapidly shifting security dynamics — as well as logistical and supply chain expertise. An agency that bears all of this, in fact, already exists. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees has decades of institutional experience in Gaza, with embedded networks of local staff, community leaders, and partners that enable credible and efficient operations. UNRWA’s long-standing presence allows it to assess and respond to urgent needs — including food, water, shelter, maternal health, and education — while navigating destroyed infrastructure and access restrictions. As the largest humanitarian group in Gaza, and according to the U.N. and humanitarian agencies, UNRWA’s work is “indispensable.” Even the Biden administration, after cutting U.S. funding to the agency in 2024, later conceded, “There is no alternative to UNRWA when it comes to delivering food and other life-saving aid in Gaza.” Replacing this expertise with armed contractors and biometric checkpoints fundamentally undermines effective aid delivery. The conflation of military and humanitarian actions will result in more civilian deaths and suffering in Gaza, especially among children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups. When U.S. and Israeli officials deny responsibility for the failure to provide desperately needed humanitarian aid, media organizations must reject blaming this on “chaos.” These outcomes are not accidental — they are the predictable results of deliberate policy choices that cause long-term suffering, health crises, and death. Update, June 4, 2025: This article has been updated to point to news reports that show that the GHF operation is linked to casualties.