GHF sends letter to UN chief requesting partnership through its aid delivery model
The head of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has sent a letter to the UN Secretary General requesting collaboration to deliver food to Palestinians in the war-torn coastal enclave.
"The time has come to confront, without euphemism or delay, the structural failure of aid delivery in Gaza, and to course-correct decisively," Johnnie Moore, director of the GHF, said in the letter that was sent on Monday.
Israel eased a months-long blockade on Gaza last month, but it has allowed only a limited amount of humanitarian aid into the enclave by way of the UN and the newly established GHF – a controversial US and Israeli-backed private organisation that is overhauling aid distribution.
Mr Moore said the UN relies on "existing infrastructure", which has allowed for the "mass diversion, looting and the manipulation of humanitarian flows" by Hamas and other groups.
The US and Israel have long accused Hamas of looting food and supplies meant for hungry Gazans. The GHF has founded sites around the enclave that are secured by a private security force meant to prevent looting.
"The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has built and demonstrated an alternative model that is highly effective," he wrote, saying that the organisation has distributed more than 40 million meals.
"Despite operating under grave threat, GHF has succeeded in surging emergency food aid directly to Palestinians in desperate need, bypassing intermediaries and restoring the the integrity of humanitarian action."
Mr Moore called on the UN to engage "immediately and directly" with the GHF to deliver food without the use of "intermediaries, but through a model that has already proven its capacity to reach those in need".
The UN human rights office reported on Tuesday that 500 people have been killed while trying to access aid at the GHF's secured sites, most of them by Israeli fire.
Israel and the GHF have denied reports of violence. Mr Moore said a disinformation campaign has "sought to stop us from feeding people from the moment we started", adding that the UN has fallen victim to false reports.
He wrote that the GHF has also been attacked by Hamas and other groups. This month, at least five people on a GHF bus carrying more than two dozen local Palestinians working with the initiative were killed and several injured.
Mr Moore called on the UN to condemn attacks on humanitarian workers in Gaza and denounce the obstruction of aid by Hamas.
US President Donald Trump 's administration has authorised $30 million to be given to the GHF, according to reports.
A document reviewed by Reuters showed that the $30 million US Agency for International Development grant was authorised on Friday under a "priority directive" from the White House and State Department.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
The UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon needs retooling
The fate of Unifil, the UN interim force in Lebanon, whose renewal is scheduled in August, may be hanging by a thread. According to the Hebrew version of the Israeli daily Israel Hayom on June 8, the US and Israel have agreed to end the force's operations, with Washington having a major say in the matter as it funds around a quarter of its budget. The final outcome remains unclear, however, and the Lebanese authorities remain optimistic that Unifil's mandate will be renewed. More relevant today, however, is that the context has substantially changed in the past six months, encompassing the uncertainties surrounding the conflict involving the US, Israel and Iran. When Lebanon and Israel reached a ceasefire agreement last November, one aspect of the deal was the strengthening and expansion of a committee whose role would be to 'monitor, verify, and assist in ensuring enforcement of [the agreement]'. The parties agreed it would be headed by a US general and include a French representative, in addition to Lebanese, Israeli and Unifil representatives. In parallel, the administration of former US president Joe Biden had sent Israel a letter on the side in which it gave the Israeli government the right to strike militarily against any violation of the agreement – immediately in south Lebanon and only after giving the Lebanese army time to do so first in other parts of the country. The Donald Trump administration has maintained the same approach, and Israel continues to attack Hezbollah targets to this day. Israel can achieve its objectives more forcefully and directly through a hegemonic military approach that doesn't require it to navigate through international institutions, for which it has contempt Not surprisingly, this situation has encouraged Israel to go along with any American decision to terminate Unifil. There is nothing more the Israeli government would like than to exploit the free rein that Washington has accorded them in Lebanon, without the burden of international oversight through the UN force. At a time when Israel has significantly expanded its regional ambitions and is operating freely in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran – in preparation for what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a 'new Middle East" – Unifil represents a hindrance. Today, the Israelis can achieve their objectives more forcefully and directly through a hegemonic military approach that doesn't require them to navigate through international institutions, for which they have contempt. One would assume that unconditional US backing for Israel, coupled with US President Donald Trump's antipathy towards spending his country's money on UN endeavours, means that Unifil may be doomed. While that may be the case, the regional situation simply cannot be ignored in assessing the force's future. Mr Trump, whatever his commitment to Israel, is not someone who relishes being dragged into conflicts not of his choosing. Southern Lebanon creates such a risk. While there are indications he knew of the recent Israeli attack on Iran, the fact that Israel did not deliver a knockout blow and that the US intervened last weekend has created political problems for Mr Trump. It not only divided his base, there were never any guarantees Washington had a silver bullet guaranteeing victory against Iran. If this invites more caution from the US President, he may have an interest in ensuring that Unifil remains in place, as it may bring an added level of stability to southern Lebanon. In other words, while the US may cut its spending for the UN force, it may also be more amenable to compromises that keep Unifil alive. Among the potential ideas circulating is that Unifil be retooled and made to adapt to the new political environment in Lebanon – what Assaf Orion, an Israeli general at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has called 'forging Unifil 3.0'. This would involve cutting the force's numbers to make it leaner, satisfying the cost-cutting preferences of the Americans, while allowing it to more effectively support the Lebanese army in asserting its authority in the country's south. Mr Trump's recent statements in Saudi Arabia implied that he would like to calm the situation in the region. This doesn't square with Israel's plans to impose its will by force on surrounding countries. What kind of tranquillity can be achieved if Israel continues to bomb Lebanon, Syria and Iran, while threatening Turkey because of its expanding influence in Syria? In other words, a peaceful Middle East cannot follow from Israel's desire to sustain its regional military supremacy. Whether any of the people close to the President who are of Lebanese origin will have a say on Unifil is an interesting, speculative question. It can't be ruled out that Thomas Barrack, Mr Trump's envoy to Turkey and Syria, Michel Issa, the new ambassador to Lebanon, and Massad Boulos, whose son is married to one of Mr Trump's daughters, may be asked privately to weigh in on Lebanese affairs. It would be in character for Mr Trump to consult with those around him if Unifil renewal were brought to his attention. While nothing indicates that the ethnic origins of these individuals would shape their advice if they were asked for their views, Mr Barrack and Mr Issa might seek outcomes that benefit them in their respective roles. Anything that avoids rocking the Lebanese boat may be such a thing. It is too early to say what will happen to Unifil. However, one thing seems increasingly evident: the force cannot go on as it is. The situation in Lebanon and the region has changed too much, so that it makes sense to assimilate these changes into Unifil's role, which has to be reinforced. Killing Unifil, on the other hand, would merely create an uneasy vacuum that only makes matters worse.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
The UN Charter was signed 80 years ago. It's now time to rekindle the call for unity
Eighty years ago this month, the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco, turning the page on decades of war and offering hope for a better future. For 80 years, the UN has stood as the highest expression of our hopes for international co-operation, and as the fullest embodiment of our aspiration to end the 'scourge of war'. Even in a world steeped in cynicism, this is a milestone worth acknowledging. The UN remains the only organisation of its kind, and the only one to have endured for so long. That longevity is remarkable when we consider the context of its founding: assembled from the rubble of not one, but two global cataclysms. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, had collapsed in disgrace. No organisation is flawless. But to paraphrase the second secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold: the UN was created not to take humanity to heaven but to save us from hell. In that mission, it has not failed. We continue to witness heart-rending scenes of war – in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The recent escalation between Israel and Iran is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace, particularly in the tension-prone Middle East. Yet amid the violence, we have managed to avert a third global war. In a nuclear age, that is an achievement we can never take for granted. It is one we must preserve with the full force of our efforts. Over the past eight decades, much of human development also bears the direct imprint of the UN. Consider the success of the Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2000 by 189 member states and more than 20 international organisations, which gave the world a shared roadmap for action. By 2015, compared to 1990, extreme poverty was more than halved. Child mortality had fallen by nearly 50 per cent. And millions of children – especially girls who had long been denied the right – had entered school for the first time. Now, as we strive to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, we must build on that legacy of progress. We must continue efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal health coverage and produce and consume sustainably. There is another story of progress, often overlooked: the dismantling of empire. Eighty years ago, colonialism cast its shadow over much of the world. Today, more than 80 former colonies across Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific have gained independence and joined the UN. That transition, supported and legitimised by this organisation, reshaped the global order. It was a triumph of self-determination, a profound affirmation of the charter's most fundamental principle: the sovereign equality of all states. The world has changed dramatically since 1945. Today, the UN faces a deepening liquidity crisis. Despite the promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, progress has been uneven. Gender equality continues to elude us. Our pledge to limit global temperature rise and protect our planet is slipping beyond reach. These setbacks do not warrant diminished ambition but greater resolve. The UN has always shown its worth in times of crisis. Its founders had witnessed humanity at its most destructive and responded not with despair, but with boldness. We must draw on these achievements. The spirit of San Francisco was not utopian. It was grounded in a sober understanding of what was at stake. It held that, even amid deep division, nations could still choose co-operation over conflict and action over apathy. We saw that spirit last September, when world leaders gathered in New York for the Summit of the Future. After difficult negotiations, they adopted the Pact for the Future and its annexes – the Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact – by consensus. In doing so, they pledged to renew multilateralism for a world more complex, connected and fragile than the one imagined in 1945. That spirit endures today. It lives in the resolve of 193 member states, in the integrity of international civil servants, and in the quiet determination of those who believe firmly in the promise of the charter. It is carried forward by Secretary General Antonio Guterres's UN80 initiative, which calls on us to deliver better for humanity; and to look to the future with adaptability and hope. As we mark this anniversary, we must rekindle the call for unity and solidarity that rang out from San Francisco 80 years ago. We built a world order once, in the ruins of war. We did so with vision and urgency. Now, again, we find ourselves at a moment of consequence. The risks are high. So too is our capacity to act.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iran and Israel in fragile ceasefire and aid site violence in Gaza
A ceasefire between Israel and Iran appeared fragile just minutes after it came into effect, with both sides launching attacks. Violence continues to plague aid distribution operations in Gaza. Today is the second day of the Nato summit. On today's episode of Trending Middle East: Qatar reveals it helped broker Iran ceasefire This episode features Vanessa Ghanem, Arab Affairs Editor; and Sunniva Rose, Europe Correspondent.
