Israel: Aid Group Hid Funds to Soldiers, Settlers

Last updated: 15 October 2026

The New Humanitarian has published an investigation revealing that an international aid organization accepted donations explicitly earmarked for Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank. The organization deleted the content from its platforms hours after the investigation was published.

What the Investigation Found

The New Humanitarian's investigation documents how an international organization that presents itself as a neutral humanitarian actor accepted donations that were explicitly designated by donors to support Israeli military personnel and settler communities in the occupied West Bank. Fundraising pages, since deleted, contained explicit language linking donations to support for military units and specific settlements.

The investigation involved months of documentation, including archived web pages, screenshots of donation pages, financial transfer records, and interviews with former employees of the organization who raised internal concerns about the practice before deciding to speak publicly.

The organization, which operates across multiple conflict zones and receives funding from major institutional donors including European governments, deleted the relevant content from its website and social media platforms within hours of The New Humanitarian's publication, without issuing any public explanation or acknowledgment.

Why This Matters: Humanitarian Principles and Neutrality

The cornerstone principles of humanitarian action — humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence — are not merely ethical guidelines. They are the practical foundation upon which humanitarian organizations' ability to access and assist affected populations depends. Parties to conflicts grant humanitarian access precisely because they believe humanitarian actors are not supporting the opposing side.

An organization that accepts donations explicitly designated for military personnel of one party to a conflict has, at minimum, a serious neutrality problem. If it accepted such donations knowingly, it may have violated the fundamental principles that justify its humanitarian status and the access and privileges that come with it.

For humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon — where access depends on the cooperation of multiple parties including both Israeli and Palestinian authorities — the perception of partiality can mean the difference between reaching civilians in need and being denied access entirely.

The Settler Dimension: International Law Considerations

The inclusion of settler communities in the West Bank as beneficiaries of the organization's fundraising raises distinct legal questions. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are considered illegal under international law by the International Court of Justice, the UN Security Council, and the vast majority of the international community.

Organizations that provide material support to settlement activities — even framed as "community support" — risk facilitating activities that international law deems unlawful. Several European governments have issued guidance to NGOs operating under their funding frameworks to ensure their activities do not inadvertently support or legitimize settlement expansion.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that states have positive obligations to prevent their citizens and organizations from contributing to human rights violations in occupied territories. The question of whether the organization's fundraising activities triggered these obligations is a matter now under active legal review by several donor governments.

Accountability in the Humanitarian Sector

The investigation highlights broader accountability gaps in the international humanitarian sector. The sector lacks a comprehensive independent oversight mechanism capable of auditing organizations' activities against the neutrality and impartiality principles they claim to uphold.

The Core Humanitarian Standard and various accreditation frameworks provide some governance structure, but compliance is largely self-reported and there is no equivalent of a professional regulatory body with the power to investigate and sanction organizations for breaches of humanitarian principles.

Several former aid workers and humanitarian law scholars have called the investigation a "wake-up call" for the sector, arguing that the absence of systematic accountability for neutrality and impartiality violations has allowed problematic practices to develop in multiple organizations without detection or consequence.

The Broader Context: Aid, Conflict, and Integrity

This case does not exist in isolation. Concerns about the politicization of humanitarian aid — from all directions — have been mounting for years. The weaponization of aid by states and non-state actors, the use of humanitarian cover by intelligence agencies, and the political filtering of who receives assistance are all documented problems that erode the effectiveness and legitimacy of the humanitarian system.

Trust in humanitarian organizations — earned over decades of dangerous work in some of the world's most difficult environments — is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild once lost. The organization at the center of this investigation has a particular responsibility to provide a transparent accounting of what happened, why, and what will change.

The New Humanitarian has called on the organization's board and institutional donors to commission an independent review of the practices documented and to make the results public. As of March 16, no such commitment has been made.

"Humanitarian neutrality is not optional or negotiable. The moment you start directing funds to military forces or illegal settlements, you have ceased to be a humanitarian organization in any meaningful sense of the term."

— Senior Humanitarian Law Scholar, quoted by The New Humanitarian

Sources: The New Humanitarian — thenewhumanitarian.org | International Committee of the Red Cross — icrc.org | UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) on Israeli Settlements — un.org | International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (2004) — icj-cij.org | OECD DAC Humanitarian Assistance Principles — oecd.org | Core Humanitarian Standard Alliance — corehumanitarianstandard.org

What This Means for Asylum Claims Involving Israel

The New Humanitarian's finding that an aid organisation took donations earmarked for Israeli soldiers and settlers concerns humanitarian neutrality, not a refugee flow, so its asylum relevance is limited. It may matter where a Palestinian claimant's account or evidence relies on aid organisations, since their neutrality affects how far their reports and assistance can be trusted. The report itself does not engage a Convention ground such as political opinion or nationality. Our Israel country expert witness reports can assess such evidence in context.