Israeli fire killed at least 15 Palestinians at an aid post, according to Gaza officials

[MIDDLE EAST] In recent days, Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on crowds of Palestinians gathered at newly established aid distribution points in southern Gaza, resulting in at least 15 to 31 deaths and dozens of injuries according to local officials, health authorities, and eyewitnesses. The shootings occurred near sites operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a controversial US- and Israeli-backed organization created to distribute food and basic supplies amid a deepening humanitarian crisis. The Israeli military claims it fired only warning shots at individuals it deemed suspicious or threatening, and denies targeting civilians directly at the aid sites, but multiple reports and medical sources confirm mass casualties among those seeking food.

The new aid distribution system, which bypasses the United Nations and established humanitarian agencies, has been widely criticized by international organizations, the UN, and aid groups for failing to meet basic humanitarian standards and for exposing desperate civilians to further danger. The GHF operates only four distribution centers—far fewer than the hundreds previously run by the UN—forcing many Gazans to travel long distances and cross military lines, often through active conflict zones. Armed security contractors, drones, and Israeli military oversight have contributed to chaotic and sometimes deadly scenes, with video evidence showing panic, stampedes, and the use of live ammunition or warning shots to control crowds.

The United Nations and humanitarian organizations have condemned the violence and called for independent investigations into the shootings, with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stating, "It is unacceptable that Palestinians are risking their lives for food," and demanding accountability for those responsible. Despite Israeli and GHF assertions that the new system is necessary to prevent Hamas from diverting aid, critics argue there is no credible evidence of large-scale diversion and that the new model is exacerbating the crisis rather than alleviating it.

Implications

For Businesses:

The instability and violence surrounding aid distribution in Gaza highlight the extreme risks for private contractors and logistics firms operating in conflict zones. The controversy over GHF’s operations—especially its use of armed security and the lack of established humanitarian protocols—could deter reputable organizations from participating in future aid efforts and damage the reputations of those involved. Companies working in humanitarian logistics may face increased scrutiny regarding their compliance with international law and ethical standards.

For Consumers and Civilians:

For the two million residents of Gaza, the current aid system presents a grim choice: risk death or injury by seeking food at militarized distribution points, or face starvation due to the ongoing blockade and insufficient humanitarian access. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, and the infirm—are particularly at risk, as the centralized distribution model excludes those unable to travel or withstand the physical ordeal of reaching the sites. The situation has already resulted in dozens of deaths from malnutrition and is pushing Gaza closer to famine.

For Public Policy:

The crisis exposes the dangers of politicizing humanitarian aid and bypassing established international frameworks in favor of ad hoc, militarized solutions. The exclusion of the UN and major NGOs from aid delivery not only undermines humanitarian principles but also sets a troubling precedent for future conflicts, where aid could be used as a tool of coercion or population control. Calls for independent investigations and respect for international humanitarian law are likely to intensify, with potential diplomatic fallout for both Israel and its allies if credible allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity are substantiated.

What We Think

The events unfolding at Gaza’s new aid distribution centers are a stark indictment of efforts to “militarize” humanitarian assistance. While Israel and its partners argue that bypassing the UN is necessary to prevent aid diversion, the evidence suggests that the new approach has created more chaos, suffering, and loss of life, rather than delivering relief. The scenes of desperate civilians being shot at while seeking food are not just tragic—they are a predictable outcome of a system designed more for control than for care.

The exclusion of experienced humanitarian agencies and the reliance on private contractors with armed security have undermined both the safety and the dignity of aid recipients. The centralized, militarized aid model has failed to account for the needs of the most vulnerable and has instead exposed thousands to new dangers. As international outrage grows and calls for accountability mount, it is clear that a return to established, principled humanitarian operations is urgently needed.

Ultimately, the Gaza crisis is a test of the world’s commitment to humanitarian norms. If aid can be weaponized, restricted, or used as leverage in one of the world’s most acute emergencies, the precedent set here will echo far beyond the region. The international community must insist on unimpeded, impartial aid access and hold all parties accountable for violations—not just for Gaza’s sake, but to uphold the very foundation of humanitarian law.