Weaponized Humanitarianism: Over 600 Killed as US-Backed Gaza Aid Program Turns Deadly
Executive Summary
Since the rollout of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May 2025, more than 600 Palestinians have allegedly been killed and over 4,000 wounded at or near its aid distribution sites. Ostensibly created to circumvent Hamas diversion of aid, GHF has become the epicenter of daily violence involving Israeli military forces and armed American contractors. With multiple sources including witnesses, medical personnel, and internal whistleblowers providing consistent evidence of systemic abuse, and with growing global condemnation, the GHF is now regarded as both a humanitarian failure and a strategic liability.
Strategic Analysis
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US- and Israeli-backed aid distribution initiative, was intended to provide an alternative to UN-managed relief in the Gaza Strip following allegations that Hamas was misappropriating international aid. Since operations began in May 2025, the GHF has delivered over 50 million meals, but this number is now overshadowed by the human cost: over 600 Palestinians have been killed and thousands wounded at or near GHF sites. The violence is concentrated in southern and central Gaza, especially Khan Younis and Rafah, and is occurring on a near-daily basis.
Eyewitnesses, videos, and internal accounts from contractors have repeatedly shown that American private security forces guarding the GHF sites are using live ammunition, stun grenades, and pepper spray on civilians. These contractors, hired by UG Solutions and operating under Safe Reach Solutions, include poorly vetted, often undertrained personnel with minimal oversight. In one incident, videos showed guards firing weapons and celebrating while civilians ran for cover, with at least one man reportedly struck by gunfire. Forensic audio analysis confirmed the presence of live gunfire close to crowds at multiple sites.
Israel’s military maintains that its forces only use warning shots and are not stationed at the sites during operations. However, multiple independent reports, including BBC-verified footage and AP investigations, place IDF tanks and drones near GHF sites at the time of fatal incidents. The IDF’s vague responses and repeated use of phrases like “under investigation” have done little to satisfy international observers, including the UN Office for Human Rights, which has explicitly stated that Israel has “shelled and shot at Palestinians trying to reach the distribution points.”
The humanitarian toll is compounded by operational chaos. Aid seekers are corralled through narrow metal gates, with no crowd control and limited distribution hours. The desperation among Gaza’s starving population, after months of siege, has made these sites magnets for looting, gunfire, and mass casualty incidents. International aid organizations and UN agencies, excluded from the GHF system, have sharply criticized the initiative. Doctors Without Borders described the GHF as “slaughter masquerading as aid,” while over 170 NGOs have called for its shutdown.
Adding to the controversy is the revelation that Boston Consulting Group, a prominent US firm, not only helped plan the GHF’s logistics but also modeled a post-war strategy to relocate hundreds of thousands of Gazans out of the enclave. This plan included financial estimates comparing the costs of displacement versus local reconstruction—an explosive disclosure reinforcing claims that the GHF may serve broader strategic aims beyond humanitarian relief.
Furthermore, the GHF reportedly employs facial recognition systems, monitored in a joint Israeli-American operations hub near the Kerem Shalom crossing. Contractors are instructed to photograph “suspicious” individuals, feeding intelligence to IDF personnel. This surveillance integration with live security operations blurs the line between aid distribution and military targeting.
The cumulative effect of this weaponized humanitarianism is threefold. First, it erodes the legitimacy of Western humanitarian involvement in Gaza, especially as the US Congress faces mounting pressure to investigate its funding of the GHF. Second, it provides strategic ammunition to adversaries like Iran and Hamas, who now label GHF centers as “death traps.” Finally, it raises severe legal and ethical questions. With over 70% of the victims at GHF sites being men—often the sole providers in their families—the program risks accelerating Gaza’s economic and social collapse.
As calls grow for the GHF’s dismantling and a return to neutral, UN-led aid distribution, the strategic calculus for Israel and the US is shifting. The GHF, initially envisioned as a workaround to Hamas and the UN, is now a geopolitical flashpoint—one that is undermining both regional stability and global humanitarian credibility.
