The effectiveness of humanitarian aid delivered by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has been called into question by a new paper , which noted that not only was the distribution of aid being offered inhumane, but could well be violating international law.
Images that have surfaced online since 2025 of hungry civilians forced to walk for miles to humanitarian aid stations amid mass displacement, ongoing conflict and devastating loss, is a haunting example of a failed and inhumane aid delivery model.
Authored by Associate Professor Shannon Bosch , the paper has shone a spotlight on the failed humanitarian relief outsourced to private security contractors in Gaza.
The Associate Professor from Edith Cowan University's (ECU) School of Business and Law said the GHF's concentration of aid distribution through four large, heavily secured aid sites breached international law.
The radically different model for delivering food to Palestinians trapped in Gaza occurred over six months in 2025.
"My research into the GHF model shows why the delivery of humanitarian aid matters. Humanitarian assistance in occupied territory must comply with rules designed not merely to get food into civilian hands, but to protect the people receiving it," Associate Professor Bosch said.
"The protection of civilians must be at the heart of delivering humanitarian aid."
Where and how aid is delivered matters
Before the GHF began operating, humanitarian assistance had been distributed through more than 400 UN-coordinated sites across Gaza . The GHF replaced this network with four large distribution sites.
Safe Reach Solutions provided security logistics, while UG Solutions secured distribution sites and interacted directly with Palestinians.
Civilians south of Wadi Gaza could reach the aid distribution sites only using routes that took them through heavily armed Israeli military units and bases , while people in northern Gaza faced long journeys.
"Distribution was also unpredictable. At times, civilians received only minutes' notice that a site was opening, and sites could remain open for very short periods."
Associate Professor Bosch argues that the GHF is a model for how humanitarian aid should not be delivered.
"When uniformed and heavily armoured private security personnel are employed to handle the delivery of humanitarian aid – the international law warning bell should be ringing," she said.
"We often see humanitarian workers with a military-like convoy to protect and guard them in occupied territory against criminal elements trying to hijack aid, but private security contractors are not trained to actually be the ones delivering aid."
International law requirements
International humanitarian law and international human rights law places extensive obligations on an occupying power towards the civilian population.
Associate Professor Bosch said the GHF model is legally problematic. There are limits to the ways an occupying power can regulate humanitarian operations for legitimate security reasons.
"Calling something 'humanitarian aid' doesn't make it so," she said.
" Humanitarian relief must remain impartial and needs-based . Civilians must be treated humanely and without discrimination. Relief operations must also be sufficiently independent of political and military objectives to retain their humanitarian character.
"What the GHF model shows is that the delivery of humanitarian aid can be weaponised as a tool of control. It can be used to violate human rights and force people to relocate. How aid is distributed and who is doing it matters."
Humanitarian aid should reduce civilian vulnerability
The GHF aid distribution points became sites of crowding, stampedes and shootings . Vulnerable civilians attempting to access aid included women, children, older people and people with disabilities. Thousands of Palestinians were reported killed or injured around GHF distribution sites and aid routes .
Associate Professor Bosch's research argues that activities such as coercive crowd control, intelligence gathering, security screening and the use of force in civilian settings risks crossing the line between protecting humanitarian operations and performing military or government functions.
"A humanitarian system should reduce civilian vulnerability, not repeatedly expose hungry civilians to danger in order to obtain food," Associate Professor Bosch said.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power remains responsible for the treatment of protected civilians by those acting under its authority or control.
"As governments increasingly rely on private contractors to outsource functions once carried out by states or established humanitarian organisations, they ought to be reminded that this does not negate their legal responsibility to uphold international law."
Humanitarian Aid, Private Security and the International Law Obligations on the Occupying Power: A Commentary on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is published in the Journal of Conflict & Security Law.
