Table of Contents
United Nations, June 27 EST: In unusually direct language, UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Friday called the U.S.-funded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) “inherently unsafe,” adding flatly, “It is killing people.”
It’s not the sort of language typically used at the diplomatic level. But the situation on the ground in Gaza has pushed beyond the bounds of standard UN protocol. Since mid-May, over 400 Palestinians have been killed while attempting to access food and medical supplies near GHF-run distribution points—many located in contested areas with little oversight and no enforceable ceasefire.
According to Guterres, reaching these sites has become, in his words, “a death sentence.”
Aid Delivery Meets Live Fire
The GHF, backed by a $30 million U.S. grant and coordinated alongside Israeli authorities, was designed to circumvent concerns about aid falling into Hamas hands. Instead of using UN convoys or negotiated access zones, the operation relies on fixed delivery points and limited military escort.
In practice, it’s proven chaotic. Humanitarian agencies—including Doctors Without Borders (MSF)—have condemned the model as reckless. “It’s a well-intentioned idea implemented with no safety net,” one European aid official told New Jersey Times. “The result? People are dying trying to collect bread.”
Eyewitness reports describe crowds gathering at aid sites, only to scatter or be caught in crossfire. In some cases, deaths have occurred due to stampedes triggered by panic and poor coordination. Others were caught in live shooting zones.
Legal Exposure and Operational Breakdown
Beyond the headlines, there are structural concerns. The UN’s human rights office has warned that the current model may constitute the “weaponization of food”—language that, if formally adopted, could open the door to international legal action, including war crimes investigations.
Guterres stopped short of making legal claims, but did not rule them out. “Humanitarian corridors are not optional,” he said. “They are the minimum standard.”
The bigger issue, say relief officials, is the displacement of UN-led efforts. Since the GHF began operating, traditional aid corridors—run by seasoned agencies with neutral standing—have been shut down or sidelined. UN teams now report cases of internal rationing; even aid workers are going hungry.
Washington and Jerusalem Hold the Line
The U.S. has held firm on its support. Officials argue the GHF is the best available option in an environment where Hamas siphons traditional aid streams and security risks make coordinated delivery difficult. Israel has echoed this, citing GHF’s tight logistics as necessary under current wartime conditions.
But few outside that circle seem convinced.
“You cannot stabilize a region by undermining the only institutions built to handle crises,” one former State Department advisor said. “We’re short-term solving with long-term consequences.”
What Happens Now
As of this week, no formal UN resolution has been introduced against the GHF model, but pressure is building. Multiple agencies are pulling staff from the area. Discussions are underway about issuing new guidelines for humanitarian neutrality in high-risk zones.
For investors and international NGOs watching from afar, the message is this: the global aid architecture is under real strain. And if the UN loses its central role in crisis response, the alternative isn’t innovation—it’s fragmentation.
“The system’s not broken,” said one Geneva-based humanitarian analyst. “It’s being bypassed.”
New Jersey Times Is Your Source: The Latest In Politics, Entertainment, Business, Breaking News, And Other News. Please Follow Us On Facebook, Instagram, And Twitter To Receive Instantaneous Updates. Also Do Checkout Our Telegram Channel @Njtdotcom For Latest Updates.
