As the war in Gaza enters its eighth month, the international community is grappling with the daunting task of envisioning a path forward. The humanitarian crisis in the besieged enclave has reached unprecedented levels, with over 30,000 people killed, including at least 7,700 children. The sheer scale of the destruction and suffering and the dramatically constrained operating environment, exposes the limitations, but also the inefficiencies, of the humanitarian response.

But be mindful, as this is not your “usual” emergency humanitarian response. The politically charged Middle East region and polarization across the globe have and continue to complicate and shape what humanitarian organizations and professionals do or say. Humanitarians have to walk a thin red line on neutrality, impartiality and humanity when working in such an environment. 

Humanitarians and aid organizations did not create nor are they responsible for the violence and devastation. Yet they are compelled, by their mandates and a humanitarian imperative, to serve those who suffer from and are affected by the violence. However, that does not mean they should not be held accountable for the way they are doing their work.

Are we efficient?

A key aspect of humanitarian work in today’s crises is the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to aid delivery. In Gaza, while every humanitarian organization is trying to help, coordination and complementarity seems like a farfetched goal; the resulting competition and fragmentation hinders the efficiency and even effectiveness of the overall humanitarian deliverables. Moreover, the lack of a clear, yet simplified, unified monitoring and evaluation framework has hindered the ability to assess the impact and effectiveness of humanitarian interventions which will ultimately hinder accountability to the affected populations.

The coordination among United Nations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and other international stakeholders has been marred by delays, competitiveness and a lack of a coherent strategy. Overlapping mandates and competing priorities have led to duplication of efforts, gaps in coverage, and confusion on the ground. This lack of coordination not only hampers the effectiveness of aid delivery but also undermines the credibility and trust of the humanitarian sector as a whole. In addition, several external actors have shown interest to support, or started supporting aid delivery without any clear or shared coordinated process with the local charities and humanitarian groups already operational in Gaza. For example, while writing this article, news around operationalizing the United States Maritime corridor were circulating including its disruptions and dysfunctionality.

Are we prepared for the “Day After”?

Unfortunately, the military conflict has no end in sight while cease fire negotiations among warring parties remain deadlocked. In addition, there is lack of a unified agreed upon vision on the governance of Gaza after the conflict ends. With unclear governance scenarios, humanitarian organizations are left to hypothesize about their future role in the “Day After”. To put figures on the scale of the damage, in a total area of 365 square km[1], the World Bank, the United Nations and the European Union estimate the cost of damage in Gaza at 18.5 billion USD, mostly in housing and economic sectors. This is not the first time the humanitarian and development sectors are faced with such a challenging situation in assessment, access and lack of clarity on possible scenarios and extent of damage. Humanitarian organizations, including IFRC and its members, can anticipate the scale of as to what needs to be done but the lack of clarity on governance makes the “how” unclear and risks further chaos and suffering.

What should we be doing?

Talk to everyone

To better serve the population in need, we must engage with all relevant stakeholders: community representatives, governments, regional powers, state and non-state actors—those with influence. Humanitarian diplomacy and advocacy are crucial in paving the way for sustainable humanitarian efforts and highlighting the challenges faced on the ground. This broad engagement will also help us understand potential “Day After” scenarios, which in turn will enable us to strategically and rapidly allocate resources, recruit effectively, and prepare comprehensively for the short and longer term future.

Coordinate in the field, don’t just convene a meeting

One can understand that each humanitarian agency has its mandate, its strategic objectives and its own internal regulations and risk appetite that govern and guide decisions. One also can understand that it is legitimate for each organization to protect its own interests and grow further services, to demonstrate added value, not only to donors, who will require accountability and detailed reporting, but also, and most importantly, to the affected communities and global public opinion. However, in this particular response, the whole world is polarized, watching and judging! Humanitarian organizations should have the managerial courage to be open for better coordination and tough decisions that part ways with old ways of doing business. Decisions that are truly field informed, pragmatic, productive, complimentary and framed in ethical principles. This is a lot easier said than done, but the stakes are too high not to try. The reputational risk, the scrutiny by social and mainstream media will hyper criticize any organization, on the first and every challenge. We need less meetings and more field level coordination among all humanitarian actors with local communities.  Addressing competitiveness, boldly, among humanitarian agencies will require courage from our leaders.

One area that requires strong coordination is practical simplified monitoring and evaluation. A unified M&E framework that enables all humanitarian organizations to have the same indicators and baselines will enhance accountability to those who we serve.

Localization, anyone?

One can understand the concept of localization, the importance and pivotal role that community engagement adds and shapes our interventions. However, are the humanitarian and development sectors in MENA are ready for genuine localization? With weak financing, more conflicts and frequent natural events and more governance challenges? In addition, what do we actually mean by localization? Is it involving communities in all project or program cycles? Is it sustainability? Is it finance? And what if the community structures are so fragile, its infrastructures are torn apart and are leaderless? Just like Gaza under this conflict.

Localization should not mean the developed world abandoning the people affected by crises, but rather seeking the opportunity to respond and build back better, not the houses nor the schools, but investing in people as individuals and as communities. Enhancing people’s ability to fulfil their fullest potential on the short and long term. Invest in youth, empower women, their education, their critical thinking, their peacefulness and their resilience.

In conclusion, the “Day After” in Gaza will require not only a political solution, but also a fundamental rethink of the humanitarian response, one that prioritizes coordination, localization, and humanitarian diplomacy. Failure to do so risks perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering in the region. The international community must act swiftly and decisively to prevent further catastrophe and work towards a just and lasting peace.

---

[1] Double the size of Washington DC.