U.S. Contractors Propose Gaza Aid Takeover Plan \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A new U.S.-based group of ex-military, aid officials, and security contractors is proposing to take over humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza, raising alarm among U.N. officials and NGOs concerned about neutrality, forced displacement, and military influence.
Quick Looks
- A new American-led group proposes to control Gaza aid delivery.
- The group’s plan mirrors Israeli ideas rejected by the U.N.
- Former WFP director David Beasley is considered for leadership.
- U.N. officials warn the plan could “weaponize aid.”
- Critics fear forced displacement of Palestinians to aid hubs.
- Trump administration expresses support for the proposal.
- Private security firms may be used for logistics and protection.
- Aid agencies remain skeptical, calling it unworkable and politicized.
Deep Look
A newly formed coalition of American security contractors, ex-military officials, and humanitarian figures has proposed a controversial plan to take over the distribution of aid in Gaza, threatening to upend the longstanding role of the United Nations and international NGOs. The proposal, spearheaded by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and quietly supported by the Trump administration, comes as Israel’s blockade continues into its 10th week, deepening a humanitarian crisis for more than 2.3 million Palestinians.
The Proposal: A Parallel Aid System
The 14-page document obtained by the Associated Press outlines a system of four distribution hubs under private protection, capable of serving up to 300,000 people each, with the goal of eventually reaching 2 million. Recipients would receive pre-packaged food, hygiene kits, water, and blankets, trucked from the border in armored vehicles by subcontracted security forces.
The plan bears striking similarities to aid distribution concepts circulated by Israeli officials, which have been widely rejected by U.N. leaders and aid groups for centralizing aid and placing control in the hands of actors aligned with military or political interests.
Who’s Behind the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
The group is reportedly registered in Geneva and includes former U.S. military officers, humanitarian logistics executives, and private security consultants. The former head of the U.N. World Food Program, David Beasley, is named as a potential leader, although his involvement is listed as “to be finalized.”
Beasley’s prior ties to Fogbow, a private logistics company that briefly managed U.S. aid delivered by sea via a military-built pier, have added to questions about the blurred line between military operations and humanitarian logistics.
Only one individual listed in the proposal responded to the AP’s inquiries, stating they were “not on the board,” suggesting the leadership lineup remains in flux.
Israeli Approval, U.N. Rejection
While Israel has yet to officially comment on the GHF plan, its own push to assert control over aid entering Gaza—citing alleged diversions by Hamas—is echoed in the proposal’s rationale. Israel has insisted that no aid will resume unless it can verify how and where it is distributed, and to whom.
The U.N. and major aid agencies strongly reject those claims, asserting that existing U.N. structures already provide oversight, and that the vast majority of aid reaches intended recipients.
“Weaponizing Aid” and Forcing Displacement
The proposal’s reliance on centralized aid hubs, guarded by private forces and removed from population centers, has raised fears of forced displacement. Aid officials say such a system would compel desperate families to move long distances in search of food and water, potentially emptying entire areas of Gaza and deepening the displacement crisis.
“This system would depopulate entire parts of Gaza,” said Shaina Low of the Norwegian Refugee Council. “They are framing it as a fix to a problem that doesn’t exist. The real problem is the aid blockade and bombardment, not U.N. corruption.”
Human rights advocates also warn that aid delivery models aligned with military interests erode humanitarian neutrality, a cornerstone of international aid law.
Private Security and the Risk of Militarization
The GHF plan would rely heavily on private logistics firms and security contractors to transport and distribute aid—an unusual model in large-scale humanitarian operations, where neutrality and independence are core principles.
One firm, Safe Reach Solutions, reportedly has experience operating in the Netzarim Corridor, an Israeli-controlled area in Gaza. The proposal implies that security personnel from this region could be integrated into the plan.
While the use of private security firms in conflict zones is not unprecedented, it is fraught with complications. “Security providers must be vetted and held to humanitarian standards,” said Jamie Williamson, head of the International Code of Conduct Association for private security. “Anything less undermines the principles of humanitarian access.”
A U.S. Push for “New Solutions”
A U.S. official confirmed the proposal’s authenticity, noting that it had been circulated to U.N. agencies and international groups. Tammy Bruce, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said the plan represented “a new approach with one focus: get help to people. Right now.”
President Donald Trump, speaking ahead of a planned trip to the Middle East, hinted that his administration would announce new initiatives for Gaza relief, hostage negotiations, and ceasefire discussions. Observers believe the GHF proposal may be central to that emerging strategy.
Two aid workers present at briefings in Geneva said U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff’s team, including Aryeh Lightstone, was involved in promoting the plan.
Aid Groups Stand Firm
Despite the push, leading humanitarian groups remain deeply skeptical. Tamara Alrifai, spokesperson for UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, said the plan was “logistically unworkable” and politically dangerous.
“It sets a very dangerous precedent where a government uses siege warfare to dismantle the global aid infrastructure and replace it with a system of its own choosing,” she said.
For now, GHF remains a proposal — but one that underscores the growing battle between humanitarian neutrality and political control in one of the world’s most urgent crises.
U.S. Contractors Propose U.S. Contractors Propose U.S. Contractors Propose
You must Register or Login to post a comment.