Controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Shuts Down Operations

T

he Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — a U.S.- and Israeli-backed organization that became one of the most controversial actors in Gaza’s wartime aid landscape — will formally end its operations in the Strip, according to the group’s executive director and multiple Israeli officials familiar with the decision. The closure follows months of criticism, deadly incidents at aid distribution points, and the recent shift back toward United Nations–led relief during the current ceasefire.

GHF suspended its work in mid-October, but its leadership now confirms the suspension will become a permanent shutdown.

“We are winding down our operations as we have succeeded in our mission of showing there’s a better way to deliver aid to Gazans,” GHF executive director John Acree said in a statement. Acree did not address questions regarding the hundreds of fatalities linked to the organization’s sites, but maintained the foundation delivered “valuable lessons” for future humanitarian responses.

Israeli sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plan to close the operations was finalized weeks earlier but remained undisclosed until Acree’s announcement.

Backed and funded by both Washington and Tel Aviv, the GHF began operations in late May with the stated purpose of creating an alternative to the United Nations’ long-standing aid distribution model. It promised highly secured, controlled delivery sites that would prevent aid from reaching Hamas — a claim heavily promoted by both the Israeli government and certain U.S. officials.

Aid distribution turned deadly

From its launch, GHF ran several large-scale distribution sites in southern Gaza and one in the central part of the Strip. But the foundation’s strategy of concentrating aid at a limited number of fenced, tightly controlled points produced massive crowds of desperate Palestinians, many of whom had few other avenues to access food.

According to UN figures, more than 2,100 Palestinians were killed while seeking aid, whether in stampedes, clashes, or shootings in and around GHF sites. Some of the deadliest incidents took place near Rafah, where Palestinian authorities and witnesses repeatedly accused Israeli forces of firing on crowds gathered near the foundation’s structures. A CNN investigation into one of these events found evidence that Israeli troops opened fire as civilians surged toward food supplies.

The GHF consistently denied responsibility for the deaths, blaming “crowd behavior” and Hamas militants for the chaos. But humanitarian groups said the foundation’s model was fundamentally flawed. Its single-site approach, they argued, funneled hundreds of thousands of starving civilians into a handful of enclosures — with predictable, tragic consequences.

UN refused to participate, citing safety risks

Unlike previous international efforts, the United Nations declined to take part in GHF’s model from the start. UN officials argued the model lacked independence, was too closely aligned with the policies of the U.S. and Israel, and created unacceptable risks for Palestinian civilians.

The GHF insisted operations were conducted in coordination with the Israel Defense Forces, while security at aid sites was managed by private military contractors. Critics said this structure blurred the lines between humanitarian action and military strategy.

Reactions to the foundation’s shutdown highlight deep divides over its role. In Washington, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott praised the group’s performance.

“GHF’s model, in which Hamas could no longer loot and profit from stealing aid, played a huge role in getting Hamas to the table and achieving a ceasefire,” Pigott wrote on social media. “We thank them for all that they provided to Gazans.”

But Palestinian groups, including Hamas, reacted with anger — and satisfaction. In a statement, Hamas called GHF’s closure “a deserved step,” condemning the organization as one that “engineered starvation” and operated as part of Israel’s “security apparatus.”

Palestinian civil society organizations also welcomed the shutdown, saying the return of aid operations to the United Nations could reduce chaos and improve civilian safety.

Yet the debates sparked by the foundation’s turbulent existence are far from over. Its supporters say it demonstrated new ways to minimize diversion of aid, while its critics insist the model was built on political priorities, not humanitarian principles.

What remains uncontested is that one of the war’s most controversial aid initiatives has come to a definitive close.

(Source: CNN)