The U.N. Fumbled in Gaza. The U.S. and Israel Picked Up the Ball

In American football, when a player fumbles the ball and a teammate scoops it up, you don’t stand on the sidelines criticizing. You run with him. You block for him. You help him score. The United Nations, tragically, has forgotten that basic principle of teamwork.

The U.N. fumbled the ball in Gaza. And now that the United States and Israel have picked it up and are pushing toward the goal—getting aid to the innocent civilians who need it most—the U.N. is trying to trip them up, acting less like a teammate and more like an opponent.

Let’s review the facts. For months, the U.N. led aid operations in Gaza. And for months, it failed to prevent Hamas from seizing shipments, diverting supplies to fighters, and using food and medicine as tools of oppression. This wasn’t a case of unfortunate logistics. It was humanitarian hypocrisy. The U.N. clung to its mantra of “neutrality” and “impartiality” while turning a blind eye as aid fortified a terrorist infrastructure. The result? Hamas grew stronger. The people of Gaza grew weaker.

In fact, according to multiple reports and eyewitness accounts, Hamas fighters routinely looted U.N. aid shipments and stockpiles. They seized flour, fuel, and medicine—then either kept these supplies for their forces or sold them at inflated prices on the black market. For Hamas, controlling aid distribution wasn’t about helping their people; it was about consolidating power. Civilians who dared to protest this exploitation faced brutal repression. And yet, the U.N. continued to insist it was maintaining “neutrality,” as if that absolved it of responsibility for enabling this theft.

When Israel and the United States stepped in to create the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—an operation designed to limit Hamas theft and ensure aid reached actual civilians—the U.N. didn’t cheer on this effort. It didn’t offer support. Instead, it complained about being sidelined.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres now calls the U.S.-backed GHF operation “inherently unsafe” and claims “it’s killing people.” But where was this outrage when Hamas stole U.N. aid and sold it to starving families? Where was this moral clarity when Hamas turned aid trucks and distribution points into battlefields?

In several tragic incidents, Hamas fighters actually opened fire on Gaza civilians desperate for food, especially at sites outside of Hamas control. In early March, for example, witnesses and forensic analysts reported that Hamas gunmen fired on civilians approaching a convoy near Gaza City. Chaos erupted, leading to deaths and injuries. In the aftermath, Hamas propaganda outlets quickly pushed the narrative that the IDF had targeted these civilians. But video evidence, ballistics analysis, and eyewitness testimony pointed squarely at Hamas. Even U.N. field staff acknowledged privately that the situation was murky at best—and that Hamas bore significant blame. Publicly, though, the U.N. remained silent, unwilling to confront the uncomfortable truth.

This is the “partner” the U.N. insists on treating with neutrality—a terrorist group that murders its own people to maintain control and then lies to the world about it.

Imagine, if you will, the Allies during World War II air-dropping food into Nazi-held cities and making no effort to ensure that rations reached starving civilians rather than German troops. That would not have been praised as moral. It would have been condemned as madness.

The GHF is not perfect. No aid operation in a war zone can be. But since its inception, the GHF reports no deaths at or near its distribution sites—unlike the tragic stampedes and violence seen at U.N.-managed locations. GHF operations are designed for accountability. They are structured to minimize Hamas interference. And that’s precisely why Hamas and, strangely, the U.N. seem to oppose them so fiercely. The GHF threatens the status quo—a status quo in which Hamas exploits aid and the U.N. provides cover by calling it neutrality.

Rather than supporting a more controlled and secure aid delivery system, the U.N. has chosen pride over pragmatism. Guterres’s rhetoric is less about saving lives and more about salvaging the U.N.’s reputation after its failures became undeniable. The U.N. demands a return to the broken system it oversaw, where Hamas stole what it wanted, and Gazans were left to fight for scraps.

The U.N. had its chance. It fumbled. Now, the U.S. and Israel have picked up the ball and are running with it. And instead of trying to tackle them mid-run, the U.N. should be blocking for them, helping clear a path to success.

Neutrality is not an excuse for complicity. Impartiality does not require feeding terrorists alongside their victims. And humanitarianism does not mean letting Hamas determine who lives or dies based on obedience to its tyranny. Humanitarianism is supposed to protect civilians—not enable those who endanger them.

If the U.N. truly cares about the people of Gaza, it should stop demanding the ball back. It should stop sulking on the sidelines. And it should start helping finish the drive—because every day spent bickering over pride is another day innocent civilians go hungry.