Privatised Aid Failed People of Gaza: World Should Learn Not to Repeat It

Gaza aid experiment draws scrutiny as concerns grow over privatised humanitarian assistance

Perth: The experience of delivering humanitarian assistance in Gaza through a privatised and militarised aid model has renewed debate over how food and other essential supplies should reach civilians trapped in conflict zones.

For around six months in 2025, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) operated a different system for distributing food to Palestinians in Gaza. The foundation did not publicly disclose its donors, while reports said it received at least $30 million from the US government. Several established humanitarian organisations declined to cooperate with the initiative, citing concerns over transparency and independent oversight.

Why the GHF model became controversial

Traditional humanitarian organisations generally operate according to principles including neutrality, impartiality, independence and accountability to affected populations. The GHF model instead involved privately organised distribution points operating in an active war environment.

UN-appointed experts sharply criticised the arrangement. In an August 2025 statement, UN special rapporteurs described the GHF system as a “militarised, privatised” experiment and said it had contributed to severe food shortages and deaths among Palestinians seeking assistance. Those are the experts' assessments and should be distinguished from independently adjudicated findings.

The debate has also expanded beyond GHF. Humanitarian-sector discussions in 2026 have examined the growing role of private companies in delivering assistance during conflicts, including questions over who controls these operations, how they are funded and who is ultimately accountable to people receiving aid.

Transparency and accountability at the centre of debate

One of the principal concerns surrounding privatised humanitarian assistance is accountability.

When private entities become responsible for logistics or distribution, questions can arise over their sources of funding, decision-making structures, security arrangements and relationship with governments or parties to a conflict.

The New Humanitarian recently examined this issue through its reporting and discussion of private humanitarian operators. Critics argue that private actors can risk bypassing established humanitarian structures and potentially become influenced by political or military interests. Private operators, however, have disputed such characterisations and argued that their smaller structures can sometimes allow them to reach difficult areas more quickly than large international organisations.

What the Gaza experience could mean for future aid operations

The controversy has prompted broader questions about how the international community should design humanitarian operations in future wars.

Supporters of alternative delivery models have argued that conventional humanitarian systems can face bureaucracy, access restrictions and security challenges. But critics maintain that humanitarian assistance must remain independent of military and political objectives and should be delivered through systems that provide clear oversight.

The debate is therefore not simply about whether private companies can participate in humanitarian relief. It is also about who controls aid, how recipients are protected, how operations are monitored and whether civilians can access assistance safely and impartially.

For Gaza, where humanitarian needs remain acute, the experience has become part of a larger international discussion about the future of humanitarian assistance in conflict zones.