No Rational Aid Distribution System Should Work This Way
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. ___
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Donald Trump Considering Tactical Nukes Against Iran? What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has not taken anything "off the table," including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official. It followed a report in The Guardian that the president "is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow." The Pentagon declined comment to Newsweek, instead referring to a statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on June 16 that he had directed "the deployment of additional capabilities" to the Middle East. "Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these developments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region," Hegseth said. President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still... President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still in service, shown in 2021. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Jon G. Fuller/GETTY/AP Why It Matters No nuclear weapon has been deployed in war since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, and any use of such weapons against an Iranian facility would be extremely controversial in the U.S. and worldwide. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide "within the next two weeks" whether the U.S. will join Israeli military action that began on June 13 against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel claims that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. What To Know One of Iran's most important nuclear sites is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is believed to be buried about 80 meters deep into the side of a mountain. Experts have suggested Israel doesn't have any conventional bombs capable of destroying the site, though on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "we have the capability" to "hit all of their nuclear facilities." Unlike Israel, the U.S. possesses 30,000-pound GBU-57s "bunker buster" bombs that are specifically designed to reach targets buried deep beneath the surface and can be deployed by B-2 Spirit heavy bombers. On Wednesday, citing people "familiar with the deliberations," The Guardian reported that Trump "does not appear to be fully convinced" that GBU-57s bombs can reach the Fordow facility. It said the effectiveness of GBU-57s against the Fordow facility was "a topic of deep contention" within the Pentagon, citing two defense officials, with some reportedly believing that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy the site. It added that Trump was "not considering" the option and said it hadn't been presented by Hegseth or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons and are designed to be deployed for limited strikes or on the battlefield, rather than against whole cities. The U.S. maintains a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though none have ever been used in combat. Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said she was told by a White House official that The Guardian report was "false." According to Heinrich, the official "has no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow" adding they also denied "that any options [including tactical nukes] have been taken off the table." Israel has been attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites since June 13. On Thursday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said that at least 639 people had been killed in the attacks, though the figures have not been independently verified. In response, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Israel, killing 24 civilians, according to Israeli authorities. On Friday the British, French and German foreign ministers were slated to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva, Switzerland, in a bid to resolve the conflict. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." What People Are Saying Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich: "There have been a lot of headlines this afternoon including one from The Guardian that claims that the U.S. military has doubts about whether the 'bunker-buster' bombs could get the job done, further claiming only a tactical nuke maybe could finish it and it further stated that the president is not considering a tactical nuke, that it was not one of the options presented to him. "I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true, that none of the options are off the table and the U.S. military is very confident 'bunker busters' could get the job done at Fordow." Fox News host Jesse Watters, on Thursday: "The Guardian reported Trump was getting cold feet worried about the effectiveness of 'bunker busters' and not willing to use tactical nukes. But the White House tells Fox that's not true, everything's on the table, even tactical nukes." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, on Friday, referring to possible U.S. tactical nuke deployment, according to Russia's TASS news agency: "This would be a catastrophic there are so many speculations that, in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." What Happens Next It is not yet known whether the U.S. will launch strikes against Iran and, if so, what weaponry it will use. Deploying a tactical nuclear bomb, the first use of a nuclear weapon since World War II, would be a controversial move.
