logo
No Rational Aid Distribution System Should Work This Way

No Rational Aid Distribution System Should Work This Way

Yahoo14 hours ago

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is presiding over an unmitigated disaster, and everything about the U.S.- and Israel-backed group's failure was entirely predictable. After lifting a blockade on relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities tapped GHF, which is barely months old, as the principal aid-delivery system for starving Palestinian residents. Since its operations began last week, dozens of civilians have been killed by gunfire while seeking to access the food-distribution centers. At least twice this week, GHF suspended its relief efforts in an attempt to improve security.
Whatever you think of Israel's conduct during its war against Hamas in Gaza, you should understand that its delivery system for aid was doomed to fail. Israeli authorities and GHF had no realistic plan for what the logistics industry calls 'the last mile'—the process of getting goods from a distribution center to the customer, so to speak.
GHF was founded in February and is already on its second leader, a Trump-supporting evangelical Christian public-relations executive. Among the firms that Israel engaged to provide security for distribution sites in southern Gaza is Safe Reach Solutions, a firm led by a former CIA official and staffed by former U.S. military and security contractors that was formed only in January. GHF and SRS are both mysterious, controversial entities whose financial backing is unclear.
The organization has defended its work, claiming in a statement yesterday that 'almost 8.5 million meals have been delivered so far—without incident.' GHF also said it is still scaling up. 'Our top priority remains protecting the safety and dignity of those receiving aid,' the statement continued, 'especially as we continue to serve as the only reliable provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.'
It's true that established aid agencies that have previously worked in Gaza's difficult conditions are not involved in the current effort. Israel cut ties with the UN Relief and Works Agency amid allegations that some of its staff had been involved with the October 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas; the UN's World Food Program continues to work there but depleted all of its resources in late April. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clashed with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which lost two of its personnel in an Israeli bombing in May. (The group's leader has called conditions in Gaza 'worse than hell.') World Central Kitchen, which lost seven people in an Israeli strike in Gaza in 2024, closed its soup kitchen in April because it could not deliver food there. With relief agencies either sidelined or unable to deliver resources because of Israel's blockade, Netanyahu then chose, with American backing, the new GHF. But its first leader resigned after a few weeks, citing a lack of 'humanitarian principles' in the Gaza relief effort.
[Julie Beck: It should not be controversial to plead for Gaza's children]
Perhaps to help solve logistical questions—and perhaps to add reputational gloss to its efforts—GHF hired the Boston Consulting Group. But after violence broke out, that company withdrew from the contract. Later that same day, GHF appointed its new executive chairman, Johnnie Moore, who insisted that his agency was 'demonstrating that it is possible to move vast quantities of food to people who need it most.'
In all cases, an organization delivering goods must optimize distribution routes that align with the community it's delivering to. Israel's lack of trust for experienced relief groups doesn't justify ignoring what those operations learned about moving supplies. Many distribution systems rely on what are known as micro-fulfillment centers—local warehouses, delivery hubs, temporary facilities—to provide goods closer to where the community is. This is why, a few years ago, the COVID-vaccine-distribution efforts that drew so heavily on local doctors and pharmacies were prioritized over larger-scale efforts.
Employing many small distribution sites promotes flexibility; the system can adapt to changes in demand. The GHF has provided only four distribution centers, presumably for security reasons, in all of Gaza, down from the 400 that the UN once managed; many Palestinians must now walk hours to have any hope of picking up a food package. No rational system of distribution, under any circumstances, would work this way. GHF increased the security risk by having fewer, not more, distribution sites.
The organization also seemed unprepared when tens of thousands of people converged on those sites. Forgive the comparison, but American retail stores planning for Black Friday sales have come to understand—in some cases because of past tragedies at a 'crush point'—the need for information systems that collect data on where the demand is coming from and that help organizations meet that demand quickly. Surely Israel could have anticipated the sheer desperation of Gaza's Palestinians after it cut off relief efforts for months.
Especially in hard circumstances, how the last mile will work must be clearly explained to those on the receiving end. In large-scale logistics efforts, the mechanics of how delivery will occur—who needs the information, when they need it, and through which communications channels it will be delivered—are all integral parts of the process. Whole systems of real-time tracking, delivery windows, and notifications are there for Israel to use, even against what it perceives as a hostile population. But information about food availability has been scarce by all accounts. Al Jazeera reported that some announcements last Sunday came from speakers mounted on military drones. The shortage of information led to a rush to the limited number of distribution sites.
Business analogies only go so far. An aid site is not a Costco. Palestinian civilians are not retail customers. But perhaps if the Israeli government and its newly chosen relief entity had thought through any of the logistical matters that preoccupy established companies and experienced aid agencies alike, many more Palestinians would be receiving the food aid they badly need, faster and more safely.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Zelenskyy responds to Trump: We are not children in park with Putin, he is murderer
Zelenskyy responds to Trump: We are not children in park with Putin, he is murderer

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Zelenskyy responds to Trump: We are not children in park with Putin, he is murderer

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has responded to the words of his American counterpart Donald Trump, who compared Russia and Ukraine to children fighting in a park. Source: Zelenskyy in an interview with ABC Details: Zelenskyy was asked whether he thought Trump understood the scale of suffering in Ukraine, given his comments in the Oval Office. "We are not kids with Putin at the playground in the park. He is a murderer who came to this park to kill the kids," Zelenskyy said. The Ukrainian president stressed that Trump could not fully feel and understand the pain of Ukrainians. "And it's not about President Trump, it's about any person who is not here in the country, who is some thousands of miles away — [they] cannot feel fully and understand this pain," he said. Zelenskyy stressed that 631 children had been killed in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion. Background: Trump recently shared details of his conversation with Russian ruler Vladimir Putin the day before, including his idea that Ukraine and Russia should be allowed to fight some more because it would be easier to stop it later. He also compared the Russo-Ukrainian war to two children fighting like crazy. "Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy. They hate each other and are fighting in the park, and you try to pull them apart; they don't want to be pulled. Sometimes it's better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart," he said at the time. In addition, on 6 June, the US president said that Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian airfields were a reason for Moscow to launch new large-scale attacks. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store