Trust, Trauma, and the Quiet Power of Neutrality

Both Trump and Netanyahu had claimed to support such a deal ahead of Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington, but we are left waiting, once again, in the dark.

One of the key sticking points in the negotiations is the distribution of humanitarian aid. Hamas is demanding a return to UN-managed aid distribution, while Israel insists on keeping the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an organization backed by Israel and the U.S., as the sole distributor. Yet the GHF has been plagued with operational failures, controversy, and allegations of violence and mismanagement since its inception.

Israel's opposition to UN agencies rests on the claim that aid is diverted to Hamas, accusations that range from the UN turning a blind eye to direct complicity. While the misuse of aid by Hamas, including its resale to desperate civilians at exorbitant prices, is a real concern, it does not justify entrusting aid distribution to a body so clearly unfit for the role.

Believing that the GHF is a solution to Hamas’s manipulation of aid is deeply flawed. Since taking over, GHF-run distribution centres have been marked by chaos, violence, and unnecessary deaths. This is not just poor logistics, it reflects an alarming disregard for Palestinian civilian life. Once again, the message seems to be that no human cost is too high in the elusive pursuit of "eliminating Hamas."

Yesterday, eight children were killed while waiting for aid in Gaza. The IDF acknowledged the strike and claimed they targeted a Hamas Nukhba fighter allegedly involved in the 7 October attacks. But even if that is true, are we prepared to accept the death of starving children as collateral? Is the killing of one fighter worth the lives of eight kids who were standing in line because they are starving and have no other means to survive?

Even if one believes that no civilian toll is too high to defeat Hamas, we must ask: where is the evidence that this campaign is making Israel safer? The killing of senior Hamas figures has not resulted in the release of more hostages. It did not deter Iran’s retaliatory strikes and led to its hardening stance in previously-scheduled nuclear talks with the Americans.

It has not stopped Houthi missile launches, calmed the West Bank, or ended the return of Israeli soldiers in caskets. Instead, it has prolonged a war many believe should have ended long ago, prolonged for the sake of Netanyahu’s political survival, the whims of extremist ministers, and an impotent opposition with no moral footing.

Yes, humanitarian organizations have flaws. NGOs, charities, and UN agencies are not immune to bias, bureaucracy, or dysfunction. Anyone who has worked in the sector can attest to that. But among the most frequent criticisms of these institutions is that they refuse to take a stand. The Red Cross, for instance, is frequently criticized for not demanding access to hostages, as required under international law, or for standing by during Hamas’ grotesque hostage parades. These silences are deeply painful to many in the Jewish community, as our recent survey of Canadian Jews confirmed, UNRWA, in particular, received among the lowest favourability ratings across all actors surveyed.

But just as negotiations require compromise, aid delivery in a war zone demands a broader perspective. The very mechanism that enabled the transfer of hostages from Gaza to Israel was made possible because the Red Cross adheres to a principle of neutrality. In a world where we are constantly pushed to pick sides, neutrality can feel like a betrayal. But in conflict zones, neutrality is not cowardice, it is a strategy for building trust on all sides.

We are now seeing the consequences of a clearly biased aid delivery system, and the results are devastating. Is it worse than relying on a flawed but long-established organization like the UN, which has decades of experience delivering aid in war zones? The choice is far from ideal, but between two imperfect options, the one that chooses neutrality to preserve trust is objectively the better choice over one that picks sides simply because they happen to align with ours.

We cannot accept the rising death toll at aid distribution sites, the strategic manipulation of aid locations to push Palestinians further south, or the abysmal chaos that characterizes the current aid process.

Palestinian lives were already devalued long before this war. Now, to many, they are not even seen as human. They cannot be reduced to collateral damage in the fight against Hamas. Their hunger, suffering, and desperation deserve recognition, not dismissal, regardless of who governs them.

If we cannot recognize that, if our pain, trauma, or desire for vengeance blinds us to it, then we must at least be willing to entrust humanitarian responsibility to a neutral body. One not burdened by our grief, fury, or political calculations.