To donate to alleviate hunger in Gaza

I agree with everything you say, @Flippityflopflip but there is no point in engaging with those posters

Where is your evidence?

Or are you just spouting the usual ultra right wing Israeli government's propaganda?

The world sees what is happening in Gaza. We see the war crimes being perpretrated by the Israeli government. The man made starvation of children, women and non combatents. The turning of getting the little aid available, into a literal death run. The bombing of hospitals and schools. The wanton obliteration of all infrastructure crucial to support life in so much of Gaza. All war crimes under the Geneva convention.

Our western governments have been spineless in the face of the Israeli government justifying every one of their atrocities by shouting "it's the fault of Hamas" and "you are being anti-semitic if you criticise us".

We see the truth before our eyes. We will not be complicit in it. We will try and do what we can, despite the horror of the situation. We will donate to aid organisations even though until the Israeli government are compelled enough by deserved sanctions against them, to let the aid agencies back in to do their job, it may be too late for many, many Gazans.

I’m not sure what small charities could do in the chaos that is Gaza if the large, established NPOs are struggling to bring aid to the people who need it so desperately.

that is why donating to smaller charities or to local food banks is better as the overheads tend to be less and they don’t spend £££ on TV ads.

That's not true and there's no evidence to back that statement up. The idea that there won't be significnat overheads in any effective organization is just wrong.

You need auditing, you need monitoring and evaluation, you need systems to ensure funds are reaching the right populations and leading to long lasting and sustainable change. Large organizations also have the advantage of being able to leverage economics of scale. There's a lot of bullshit out there, that's true, but lots of great organizations too. Small organization or low overheads doesn't mean good or effective - that should be measured by impact and a good organization can demonstrate impact. When you give 5 pounds to a homeless person, you have no idea what is the impact of that money, you have no idea of what the unintended consequences might be

Ok scrap biscuits and glucose shots because sugar and refeeding syndrome. But Crackers are apparently good. Potentially some purée sachets instead of glucose ones.

Surely experts can work this out. I really don’t think this is beyond the wit of man.

A two pack of crackers isn’t going to kill someone? Crisps are probably quite floaty too.

Correct.

Sadly most of these big charities keep the money for themselves. Unfortunately not knowing for sure that they’re getting the money means I don’t donate apart from to smaller charities or directly to homeless people eg buying them food.

No I agree. And obviously the trump solution might work but it might not.

Honestly having looked now at pictures of the manna drops I think someone needs to do some maths on what the highest calorie yet smallest thing they can drop is which doesn’t reach terminal velocity to kill someone. And just pump millions in there over a period of a few days whilst we get some ships over.

Whether that’s packs of two biscuits. The little sugar shots you get for refueling when doing a marathon. Anything and just absolutely shower it.

They need Trump to tell Netanyahu to open the borders for aid and end this pointless war - he's the only one who can do this

This is what I don't understand. I have no sympathy for Hamas. But, surely, if you restrict aid, then food becomes more expensive and more precious. Hamas are the ones with the weapons so they will get the food they want regardless but if food becomes more expensive, then controlling it gets you more money.
They should flood Gaza with as much food as they need. Both because it's the morally right thing to do but also then it takes away Hamas' control because if food is cheap and plentiful then there's no value in controlling it. Or am I missing something?

Because otherwise they end up with one operation with lots of money and then these neglected operations which are not in the news and not in the public eye with just as much need. Humanitarian organizations can use non-earmarked funding the most effectively.

Gaza will need a lot of money eventually and a reutable agency will use moeny responsibl so you can give with no issue.

BUT please be aware that humanitarian agencies need non-earmarked money the most. If money is given just for Gaza (which is a situation in the public eye and to which many people are donating and -as you point out - currently the barriers are political rather than financial) then it means that they can't use the money in places where they can work more effectively and with just as much humanitarian need such as Sudan, Yemen, DRC etc.

It's always a problem for humanitarian organizations - they obviously want to use the awareness and sympathy for Gaza to fundraise but it does leave certain operations very under-funded at the same time if the money can only be used for one oepration.

Wow yes I am just reading about the airdrops. It does sound awful. Maybe Gaza is too small to airdrop in? Or they are making the packages too large.

I never quite understood the numbers before. 7000 tonnes dropped in a week on operation manna.

They have only managed to drop 305 tonnes of aid in the past 2 weeks to Gaza.

Unfortunately, airdropping supplies does mean that those supplies will inevitably go to the strongest, the quickest, the most well-armed, and so women and their children wouldn't get a sniff of any of it. I understand why it would be suggested but it's not any way to feed vulnerable people.

I didn’t know that. I always thought that would solve things. Why not send a fleet of ships then?

We can’t expect Isreal to sort this. They have no inclination.

As an aside I read my grandpas journal last year. He was a Lancaster pilot in the war. He was deeply troubled by the whole thing but he flew in operation manna (air drops to the Dutch) and it was one of his proudest achievements. They dropped 7000 tonnes of food. It is said it helped save 1 million people.

It is 2025. Surely figuring out some method is not beyond our capabilities as a combined world.

I don't know but I do donate. I don't know what might help but I have written to my mp and I donate money which are two easy ways (for me) to do something that hopefully will help someone at some point in Gaza. If it doesn't well i think ¹it's worth the risk.

I have signed up to unicef. They have got this strange policy that the first 3 months of your donations will go on aid for gaza and then to alleviate hunger anywhere in the world

Airdrop cannot get anywhere near enough volume in, it gave the figures on TV which i cannot remember but were miniscule in comparison to lorries. It also said 86% of aid is not getting in (which if I remembered rightly the figures were from the UN.)..................its just horrendous 😥

They blatantly are stealing food/ aid. They are evil but made of skin and bone also. Not sure why they wouldn’t also be starving.

Still you’re not going to stop trying to feed 9 people because 1 evil person gets fed. You’re not inflicting harm there, your doing something good.

But yes I agree the main issue is getting the aid in. Money clearly doesn’t solve that. I have no idea why we can’t just airdrop. All the countries club together and tell Isreal we are doing this.

I have been donating - and will continue to do so - to:

• Medecins sans frontiers’ Gaza fund
• Save the Children’s Gaza fund
• MAP/Medical Aid for Palestinians

I take the view that I'd rather give money than not. Choose your charity carefully - some have lower overheads than others.

Ain’t nobody flying private on the regular on $300k just saying

I know what you mean OP, it almost seems beyond money. But if you can do a bit of money, it can’t hurt

I can’t personally vouch for AAH but I don’t have an issue with the CEOs of non profits getting paid well. It is a job that requires experience and attracting professional staff is critical so that the organisation can be run effectively and do it’s job well.

On the other hand the CEO of Shell Uk has an 8 million pay package
The Tesco UK CEO nearly earns 10 million.

Non profits actually make life better for people. And the people who work in them deserve to earn fair (but not excessive) salaries.

Jean Michael Grand is paid in excess of £130k. He is the UK CEO/director/chief bottle washer, whatever you want to call him.

AAH is a global network, the US branch oversees most of the worldwide organisation. Hence the reason I mentioned the US CEO.

But presumably, you wouldn't be aware of that.

The CEO of AAH is paid over $300,000

We are in the UK. The CEO of AAH is unlikely to be paid in USD. Neither are they the CEO - a quick search will show that the job title for this post in the UK is Executive Director.

But presumably you wouldn't be aware of that, being a bot.