Who Gets To Help? The Power Struggle Behind Gaza's Foreign Aid Distribution

In the midst of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a new controversy has surfaced over the delivery of foreign aid. A US government contractor tasked with overseeing relief efforts has bypassed established Palestinian NGOs, instead awarding responsibility to a little-known organization with almost no public record. The move has ignited tensions across the humanitarian sector, highlighting a deeper conflict that transcends logistics: who ultimately controls aid delivery in politically volatile regions?

The Humanitarian Landscape in Gaza

Gaza’s aid landscape has long been shaped by blockade conditions, restricted movement, and high dependency on external support. Over the past two decades, a network of local NGOs, international agencies, and UN bodies has grown to meet the population’s needs amid chronic shortages and intermittent conflict. These actors are not just implementers; they have built long-standing relationships within communities and offer institutional memory that is critical for sustained delivery.

Donor governments like the United States often work through large contractors or implementers who coordinate disbursement and on-the-ground partnerships. In this model, the implementing agency is expected to select capable local partners that can ensure aid reaches the right people while adhering to international compliance standards. But when those choices conflict with geopolitical sensitivities or regulatory restrictions, operational efficiency can become a secondary concern.

The Bypass: Why Established NGOs Were Excluded

The current controversy began when a US-funded contractor, operating under a State Department mandate, opted to exclude multiple established Palestinian NGOs from its delivery strategy. According to individuals familiar with the process, no formal announcement was made, but affected organizations learned through omission—being cut from planned coordination meetings and funding schedules.

Publicly, the contractor has maintained that the decision was based on legal and compliance assessments. Specifically, concerns were raised around adherence to the US Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA) and the need to avoid any risk of funds inadvertently benefiting sanctioned entities. Critics, however, argue this rationale has been applied unevenly and that no substantial evidence has been provided linking the excluded NGOs to any wrongdoing.

Local organizations, many of which have operated in Gaza for over a decade, have pushed back. Several issued joint statements decrying the lack of consultation and warning that the decision would erode humanitarian effectiveness. “We are not just subcontractors,” said one director of a Gaza-based health NGO. “We are the infrastructure that has kept essential services going.”

The Obscure Alternative

Into this vacuum has stepped a previously unknown group, with no significant public track record and minimal online presence. Its name has not been officially released in press statements, though sources confirm it is registered locally and has had sporadic past engagements with smaller foreign donors.

The US contractor has defended its decision, stating that the group passed all due diligence reviews and met all vetting criteria. Analysts suggest the selection may have been influenced by a perceived neutrality, a lower risk profile in terms of external affiliations, or political factors more aligned with current US Middle East policy.

This has raised alarm among aid experts and regional observers, who worry that shifting delivery to inexperienced players risks operational failures at a time when logistics, security, and trust are all under strain.

Fallout and Fractures

The response from Gaza’s civil society has been swift and critical. Multiple coordination bodies representing local NGOs have accused the US of undermining long-term partnerships and weakening the humanitarian coordination structure built over years of conflict. The exclusion of experienced local organizations also threatens to fragment aid responses, particularly in sectors like healthcare, food distribution, and education.

“Building trust takes years; breaking it takes days,” said a program director at one of Gaza’s largest relief organizations. “Foreign donors may have compliance concerns, but these decisions carry consequences far beyond balance sheets.”

Beyond local reactions, international NGOs and donor watchdogs have begun raising questions about oversight. Some are calling for third-party audits and transparent disclosure of the criteria used to approve new partners. There is concern that a precedent is being set in which risk-averse donor strategy trumps on-the-ground capacity and experience.

Strategic Shifts and Political Calculations

At its core, this is not just a bureaucratic decision—it is a reflection of the political economy of aid. In highly politicized zones like Gaza, humanitarian work is never fully neutral. Foreign governments, through their funding decisions, shape not only what kind of aid is delivered, but who has the legitimacy to deliver it.

This case suggests that the US may be recalibrating its aid strategy to minimize reputational risk and political fallout, even if it means sacrificing operational depth. The reliance on lesser-known groups can offer legal insulation but may compromise the effectiveness of programs. It also raises the risk of marginalizing civil society actors who, for all their flaws, possess the institutional knowledge to implement at scale.

Looking Ahead

If the aim is to preserve the integrity of humanitarian relief, future efforts will need to balance legal compliance with local inclusion. Aid is not just about transferring goods or funds; it is about sustaining the social fabric in times of crisis. Bypassing local actors weakens that fabric, even if it satisfies donor risk committees.

There are ways forward. Independent oversight, clear partner selection guidelines, and advisory councils composed of both international and local experts could restore some balance. Transparency, above all, is essential. Decisions that shape lives in crisis zones should not be made behind closed doors.

Until then, the question remains: in Gaza—and elsewhere—who gets to help, and who decides?

Author: Gerardine Lucero