As the war in Gaza drags on, criticism has been swift and loud regarding Israel’s newly implemented plan to distribute humanitarian aid through private contractors instead of relying on traditional United Nations agencies. The criticism is unfounded.
The new plan is a bold, morally urgent and strategically sound effort to ensure that food aid reaches Palestinian civilians effectively and fairly, with minimal administrative or political interference.
The plan also accomplishes two vital objectives. First, it removes Hamas as an intermediary in the aid distribution process. Hamas has shown itself willing to sacrifice Gazan civilians for its objectives and has routinely diverted humanitarian aid — food, fuel and medicine — for its fighters or sold it on the black market. Any aid flowing through Hamas strengthens its stranglehold over Gaza and prolongs the suffering of ordinary Palestinians. Rerouting aid through secured zones and vetted private contractors removes this dangerous middleman and weakens Hamas.
Second, the new plan excludes the United Nations from the equation. While many still see the U.N. as an impartial humanitarian actor, Israel has ample reason to disagree. There is mounting evidence that elements within U.N. agencies — notably UNRWA — were not only complicit in Hamas’ rise but directly involved in aspects of the Oct. 7 attacks. Continuing to rely on such a compromised entity to coordinate humanitarian aid in a war zone where it has clear conflicts of interest is not only illogical — it is dangerous.
These are not side benefits of the plan. They are the point.
Critics have attacked the new model, alleging that it will concentrate aid in southern Gaza and force civilians to risk their lives to obtain it. While these concerns are legitimate, they ignore the broader reality: Israel has no choice. Continuing to funnel aid through Hamas or other unreliable intermediaries is untenable. In any event, the plan’s architects have made clear their intention to expand and adapt the system, with distribution eventually reaching more areas and focused on where the need is greatest.
While the new distribution plan is imperfect, it will be improved. More importantly, it is unquestionably a significant improvement over the previous system, in which aid fueled the very forces that were prolonging Gaza’s suffering.
There is one other significant element of the plan: Israel is responding directly to something its critics often accuse it of refusing to do, which is taking at least some responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population. It is an act of leadership for Israel to declare that if no one else will ensure that Gazans receive aid without feeding a terror army, Israel will do it. It is also an act of moral clarity for Israel to insist that institutions that enabled Hamas’ rise will not be allowed to manage Gaza’s future.
The architects of the plan deserve praise. They recognized that defeating Hamas means more than battlefield victories — it means removing the stranglehold grip of terror on civilian life, including the very food people eat. It means lifting up Gazans not as pawns or shields, but as people worthy of a future free from Hamas’ terror and tyranny.
Israel’s humanitarian plan gives us a hint of what a post-Hamas Gaza might look like. It deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves serious respect.
