Weaponizing Aid: How the US and ’Israel’ Enforce Political Submission Through Humanitarian Assistance

By Mohamad Hammoud

The Betrayal of Humanitarian Aid in Gaza

Lebanon – In the shattered heart of Gaza, where every breath carries the weight of loss and each dawn is tinged with despair, humanitarian aid has shifted from a beacon of hope to a tool of control. Starvation and displacement plague a population already devastated by relentless bombardment. The most profound tragedy, however, lies in the betrayal of mercy itself.

The US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation [GHF] does not act as a savior but rather as a tool of political domination, delivering relief under the strict control of "Israel's" security forces. When compassion is tied to power, aid no longer serves as a lifeline but becomes an instrument of subjugation.

The resignation of GHF's executive director, Jake Wood, reflects a refusal to be complicit in this moral deterioration.

Undermining Neutrality: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's Role

Despite "Israel's" atrocities against UN workers in Gaza, these workers remained committed to aiding Palestinians. However, "Israel's" refusal to allow UN agencies to operate with neutrality complicates this effort. To navigate these challenges, the GHF was created with support from the US and "Israel," effectively serving as an extension of "Israel's" military agenda.

This change has altered aid distribution, centralizing it at four heavily guarded hubs in southern Gaza near "Israeli" military sites. Palestinians from other areas must cross active conflict zones to access these hubs, linking their survival to compliance with "Israel's" displacement strategy. This system forces movement on an already besieged population, raising serious ethical and legal concerns about the weaponization of aid as humanitarian assistance.

Aid as a Tool of Coercion and Control

This operational model exemplifies what scholars describe as the "weaponization of aid," where humanitarian assistance is tied to geopolitical leverage. By controlling the type, quantity, and recipients of aid, "Israel" dictates terms of survival: Palestinians must relocate to so-called "safe zones"—which are neither safe nor voluntary—or face starvation. UN officials warn that starvation is being used as a "bargaining chip," while aid serves as a "fig leaf for further violence."

The US backs this strategy under the pretext of preventing Hamas from diverting supplies despite limited evidence. This rationale obscures a broader agenda of using aid for political submission rather than genuine relief.

Biometric Surveillance: Crossing the Line of Humanitarian Ethics

One of the most controversial aspects of this aid strategy is using biometric screening to monitor recipients. While supporters argue that this measure prevents aid from being diverted to Hamas, it goes beyond standard emergency protocols and raises concerns due to its similarities with surveillance tactics.

Collecting sensitive biometric data from civilians in a conflict zone—especially when such data could be shared with or exploited by "Israeli" authorities—violates the core humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence. For Gaza's besieged people, this does not feel like assistance; it feels like being cataloged and tracked by those perpetuating their suffering.

A Humanitarian Leader's Moral Stand: Jake Wood's Resignation

The situation became critical when Jake Wood, the executive director of GHF, resigned just one day before the foundation was to begin operations. Wood, a veteran humanitarian leader, cited the foundation's failure to maintain key principles of neutrality and impartiality.

His resignation is a serious indictment of the foundation's true purpose. If someone committed to humanitarian ethics cannot justify their involvement, how can the international community continue to support it?

The Humanitarian Community's Rejection

Many established humanitarian organizations and UN agencies have refused to participate in the US–"Israel" aid operation, underscoring the severity of the ethical breach. For these groups, neutrality is foundational, not optional. Their withdrawal signals a consensus that the GHF's activities are a political instrument disguised as a humanitarian mission.

The Dangerous Contradiction in US and "Israel" Policy

This controversy reveals a significant contradiction in the policies of the US and "Israel." Both nations publicly stress the importance of providing aid to the suffering population in Gaza, but they structure this aid to align with military and intelligence objectives. This hypocrisy is not only disappointing but also dangerous. It undermines trust in humanitarian efforts and could establish a precedent where aid is determined by strategic interests rather than actual needs. Such a shift would be catastrophic for civilians in Gaza and other conflict zones that depend on the integrity of international aid.

Restoring the Integrity of Humanitarian Aid

Humanitarian aid should aim solely to relieve suffering and not be used to manipulate or control vulnerable populations. The people of Gaza, facing bombardment, starvation, and displacement, deserve genuine support without conditions.

The international community must hold the US and "Israel" accountable and advocate for the return to humanitarian principles. Aid must be delivered safely and respectfully without using humanitarian needs as leverage or a control method.

Conclusion: Upholding Humanity Over Politics

The current approach to aid in Gaza by the US and "Israel" represents a dangerous politicization of compassion. It prioritizes military strategy and surveillance over human welfare, undermining the essence of humanitarian work. If aid becomes a mechanism for domination rather than relief, the world will fail not only Gaza's people but civilians everywhere.

Aid must remain pure, impartial, and free from political manipulation. Anything less is a betrayal of our shared humanity.