How humanitarian aid is being distributed in Gaza
How humanitarian aid is being distributed in Gaza
This weekend, the first two groups of trucks carrying humanitarian aid into Gaza crossed over the border from Egypt. The U.S. pledged to send $100 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank, which President Joe Biden announced on his visit to Israel last week.
For reference, more than three-quarters of households in Gaza receive some form of aid from the U.N. and other international organizations, mostly in the form of cash or food. Topher McDougal is a professor of economic development at the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego. He directs a graduate program in humanitarian action there, and he spoke with “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio for more. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.
David Brancaccio: When a limited convoy of international aid moves into Gaza, who and what guides its distribution to the intended destination? I mean, a lot of that’s got to be U.N.
Topher McDougal: Yeah, absolutely. So, in the past, USAID [the United States Agency for International Development] has administered the lion’s share of U.S. assistance to Gaza, and I imagine that they will continue to do so. But they work in conjunction with local partners, and the major local partner is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. That agency was originally founded in 1949, with a 3-year mandate as a temporary measure until a two-state solution could be found. It was never found.
That agency continues to serve, in effect, as a kind of parallel — but obviously unelected — government for Palestinian refugees. And since it’s funded and administered by the U.N., it’s seen as sort of a third party. They operate a network of 284 schools, many of which have been turned into displacement shelters, and 22 health centers. And it’s those facilities that are probably going to be targeted as distribution sites.
Brancaccio: Now, UNRWA has been accused of getting too cozy with Hamas. There’s a moment some years ago when U.S. aid to Gaza gets reduced because school textbooks the U.N. agency was handing out talked about jihad. The agency says it doesn’t get to pick the books or the curriculum, and that has to work with local authorities, which is typically Hamas.
McDougal: Yes, this is a classic problem in humanitarian aid and humanitarian distribution. Oftentimes, the civilians that humanitarians are looking to help are under the control of a government, which may be distasteful — may be, in this case, involved in perpetrating violence. And you work with what you have, and you have to make ethical decisions based on the balance of factors. These are the sorts of stories that have come to light all over the humanitarian world.
Brancaccio: Back in 2014, another Israel-Hamas war, you saw, when you were working with the World Bank, some of the difficulties of getting humanitarian aid in?
McDougal: Yes, part of the issue is that simple cash transfers are really not helpful in this particular case, because of what, in economics, we call the price elasticity of supply. In many other economies, cash transfers can stimulate local production, they can improve allocative efficiency, right? People will spend the money in ways that will address their idiosyncratic needs and desires and not in ways that some giant organization has decided is right for everyone. But in an economy that is so cut off, such as Gaza’s, it’s so isolated — dumping currency into a market that can’t produce what’s demanded is just a recipe for massive inflation. And in that case, that would simply be compounding what’s already really an unbearable situation.
So, in the case of emergency housing assistance in 2014, housing vouchers were not an option. But, on the other hand, construction materials, many construction materials, were listed by the Israeli government, which had imposed a blockade — a blockade that has been in effect since 2007. That blockade lists certain types of materials, including many construction materials as dual use. And that means that they could be put to military use just as easily as a legitimate, economic use. So you could build a bunker out of concrete, you could also build an apartment building.
It should be said that $100 million, the $100 million that President Biden pledged, represents a boost of around 65% over last year’s allocations to the West Bank and Gaza, collectively. That’s well and good, but considering the sheer scale of the casualties and the damage that Gaza is experiencing, and how quickly aid funds can dwindle when we’re talking about these bespoke operations that involve complicated international logistics and not simply cash transfers, it’s fairly small. So we really will want to widen the remit here. We’ll want to include more humanitarian actors. Of course, when you include more actors, things can get more sensitive. All parties to conflict have perhaps a vested interest in controlling the narrative of that conflict, and the more humanitarian actors you invite in, the more witnesses there are with more points of view, and some of them may or may not adhere to the humanitarian principle of neutrality. They may feel an inclination to speak out.
Brancaccio: President Biden has warned Hamas about diverting aid — gasoline and diesel comes to mind to military purposes. But is there a way to stop that?
McDougal: This, again, is a dilemma. What I imagine will be the case is that the aid convoy will go ahead, sort of as a test balloon, it will go without any sort of military cover. Certainly no U.S. troops, which could be seen as a provocation by Hamas and by other powers in the region. It will go without the support of U.N. peacekeepers. A U.N. peacekeeping resolution would probably not pass in the first place, and it certainly won’t pass quickly enough for anything meaningful to happen, for peacekeepers to be deployed. So I think that this will be a test case for the sustainability and the feasibility of a long-term aid intervention over the coming months.
Brancaccio: So in the near term — I’m talking days, professor — what would you like to see prioritized?
McDougal: Humanitarian assistance is the first priority. That will include food, it will include water, it will include shelter, and it will include medical supplies and health care workers as well. In the midterm, I would like to see utilities back online: water, electricity — these are humanitarian necessities. The caveat to all of that is that much of this is not as needed if we can prevent the bombing in the first place. So if we can halt the airstrikes and call for a humanitarian pause, that would be the best thing. Unfortunately, the United States vetoed that when it came before the Security Council, just on the 18th.
Stories You Might Like
There’s a lot happening in the world. Through it all, Marketplace is here for you.
You rely on Marketplace to break down the world’s events and tell you how it affects you in a fact-based, approachable way. We rely on your financial support to keep making that possible.
Your donation today powers the independent journalism that you rely on. For just $5/month, you can help sustain Marketplace so we can keep reporting on the things that matter to you.
