To donate to alleviate hunger in Gaza

[Bunion8]

I’ve received many emails from organisation on this topic. The last one, today from Action against Hunger asking for donations for support to alleviate the suffering.

it seems to me that even if I donate, the remedies needed are political ones as it’s not lack of money that’s the problem.

I’m not trying to make this about Israel/Gaza (and I ask that people please don’t hijack this post). I’m genuinely asking if you think that money donated makes a difference as I’d like to help but am at a loss to know what to do.

YABU - the money donated does help
YANBU - sending money doesn’t solve the problem

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Correct.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Thanks @Enrichetta

I try not to, but sometimes you just have to call them out.

I cannot understand how the Israeli government, given the actions meted out to Jewish people over the centuries, particularly in Germany in the last century, can do what they are doing to the people in Gaza and turning a blind eye to Israeli settler violence in the West Bank.

Horrific as the Hamas attack on Israel was on one day on 07.10.2023, it does not in any way remotely justify the grotesque actions of the Israeli government in Gaza during the last two years and the coming days.

One day, just as the world did before, they will wonder how they stood by and let it happen.

Why do you think lower overheads is a good thing?
Why is fragmentation in the aid sector a good thing?
I'm not saying that smaller charities aren't good, they certainly can be. But overheads in and of themselves are not a bad thing at all. And TV ads to fundraise - if they are raising more money that then are spending and creating awareness - are not necessarily a bad thing too.
My point is that impact (which I assume is the key outcome most of us are really interested - how to get bang for our buck) is not a function of size or overheads. You can have excellent big charities who may have significant overheads but that ensures highly impactful and sustainable interventions and can leverage economics of scale and badly run small organizations that may have very low overheads but poor audtiing, poor monitoring, no evaluation, no sustainability, no consideration of unintended consequences and long term impact etc.

Why do you think that undergoing genocide and persecution makes you nicer?
Quite the opposite actually. And then when someone seeks your destruction and tries to act on it, you kinda take that seriously.

And while there are certainly war crimes being committed in Gaza and the war needs to end, it's not the Jewish Holocaust and it's not Rwanda in the 90s (where the world let it happen) and it's not Cambodia in the 70s (where the world let it happen) - why the obsession with bringing the Jewish holocaust into it? I mean, no one is stopping the slaughter in Sudan either....or even the genocide of the Druze in Syria

Sorry OP for not sticking to the topic before.

You make a good point @HaselahHaadom about just donating to an aid agency that covers all areas in the world that needs assistance.

It is human nature that we get involved more where we see images on our TV and want to give help to them specifically rather than who the agencies need to prioritise.

Until, the aid agencies are allowed into Gaza using trucks in the huge numbers needed every day and are able to set up distribution systems so that all Gazans have fair access, they can't ignore other people in the world that they can help right now. But it will be good for the aid agencies to have all the resources they need to be able to start mass aid deliveries to the Gazans if the Israeli government (and their backer Trump) discover the last scraps of their humanity, if they have any left that is.

There are many smaller charities that are doing a stellar job but you really can’t underestimate the job of very big, well run charities with decades of experience to create change. Just one example is the role very large charities like Oxfam had in averting famine in parts of the Horn of Africa just over ten years ago. Smaller non profits simply can’t respond on this scale.

Honestly, I'm not sure why it's up to us average folk in the UK to fund this, even if the money did get where it'supposed to. Many folk here are struggling with the COL situation. There are lots of wealthy and more powerful people around the world.

Less overheads does not equal better. Overheads, which include things like a secure system to keep donors details safe, the lights, financial admin… these are all boring but essential parts of running a charity. Where do you like you see charities cutting corners? On the experience of the staff? On the quality of the service they provide to beneficiaries?

And those TV aids are part of marketing campaigns that raise much more than they cost.

It's really wonderful that you want to help. But your money is almost certainly better spent on appeals for Sudan and Ukraine, where aid can reach its intended recipients.