Analysis of Power Dynamics in Humanitarian Aid Distribution: Kalobeyei and Gaza

Humanitarian aid in complex environments such as refugee settlements and conflict zones is often entangled with local power dynamics that complicate effective aid delivery. The incidents in Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement, Kenya, and Gaza illustrate how informal and political actors can resist changes that threaten their influence, with profound consequences for aid distribution, community trust, and humanitarian outcomes.

Kalobeyei: Context and Incident Overview

Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement in Turkana County was established in 2015 and hosts over 30,000 refugees, largely from South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Burundi, under the Kalobeyei Integrated Social and Economic Development Programme (KISEDP), which promotes self-reliance and integration with host communities (UNHCR Kenya, 2024). On July 28, 2025, a Proof of Life (PoL) exercise—conducted to verify refugee identities and vulnerability as part of the Differentiated Assistance Programme—triggered protests. The exercise aimed to ensure accurate aid targeting but was met with resistance, leading to violent disruptions, injuries, and property damage (UNHCR, 2023).

Informal community leaders likely opposed changes that diminished their control over resource allocation, a phenomenon observed in refugee contexts where local power brokers manipulate aid for social capital and influence (Nicholson & Valenta, 2021; Harrell-Bond, 2022). These dynamics precipitated unrest against the new aid criteria perceived as unfair, underscoring the importance of transparent communication and community engagement.

Gaza: Context and Humanitarian Crisis

Gaza’s humanitarian crisis has been exacerbated by food distribution efforts managed by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S. and Israel-backed initiative intended to circumvent Hamas’s control over aid (Carey, 2025). Since May 2025, over 798 deaths have occurred in distribution sites, described as dangerous “death traps” by the UN (UN News, 2025). Hamas, governing Gaza since 2007, uses aid distribution to sustain political legitimacy, military capabilities, and economic control, often diverting resources for operational purposes and political gain (Levitt, 2025; Hroub, 2024; Beaumont, 2025).

Israel contends that aid inadvertently strengthens Hamas, as the group exploits aid flows to fund militancy (Times of Israel, 2025). While some analyses dispute large-scale systematic theft, diversion remains a contentious issue (Reuters, 2025). Hamas strongly resists exclusion from aid processes, rejecting alternatives like the GHF’s “Humanitarian Transit Areas,” which it views as Israeli intelligence fronts (Smith, 2025).

Power Dynamics and Resistance

In both Kalobeyei and Gaza, control over aid functions as a means of governance and influence. Informal leaders in Kalobeyei resisted reforms that threatened their resource control (Jacobsen & Landau, 2019), just as Hamas leverages aid distribution to maintain its political and military dominance (Washington Institute, 2025). Bypassing these entities risks undermining their legitimacy but also invites potential instability and factional contestation.

Lessons Learned

The cases highlight several key lessons for humanitarian actors:

• Transparency and Communication: Lack of clear and timely information exacerbates distrust and protest. Transparent criteria and open communication through forums and media (e.g., community radio in Kalobeyei) are essential (European Commission, 2024; UNHCR, 2023).

• Community Engagement: Genuine inclusion of local leaders and neutral civil society actors reduces resistance and improves acceptance (Nicholson & Valenta, 2021).

• Safety and Neutrality: Secure, neutral distribution sites are critical to minimize violence and casualties, as seen from the deadly consequences of aid in Gaza (Carey, 2025; UN News, 2025).

• Accountability and Oversight: Strong oversight mechanisms, including independent international monitors and regular audits, are crucial to deter diversion and build confidence among stakeholders (Reuters, 2025).

• Long-Term Solutions: Promoting self-reliance (e.g., KISEDP’s entrepreneurship model) and supporting peacebuilding and economic recovery reduce aid dependency and power struggles (Refugee Economies, 2024; Beaumont, 2025).

Recommendations

To address resistance and Israeli concerns regarding aid diversion, the following strategies are recommended:

1. Transparent Communication: Employ community forums and local media in Kalobeyei and publicize aid schedules openly in Gaza to foster trust and reduce misinformation (European Commission, 2024).

2. Community Engagement: Involve refugee and host community leaders in Kalobeyei and collaborate with neutral clans or civil society groups in Gaza to facilitate aid delivery while avoiding escalation (Washington Institute, 2025).

3. Neutral and Safe Distribution: Revert to UN-led or blockchain-managed cash-transfer-based systems in Gaza to limit militarization and Hamas’s control; enhance security in Kalobeyei distribution sites without militarizing them (The New Yorker, 2025).

4. Accountability and Oversight: Deploy independent monitors in Gaza and conduct audits in Kalobeyei to ensure integrity and transparency (Reuters, 2025; UNHCR, 2023).

5. Alternative Distribution Methods: Adopt blockchain-managed cash assistance and mobile distributions to decrease centralized control, empower recipients, and bypass manipulative actors (The New Yorker, 2025).

6. Strengthen Long-Term Development: Expand KISEDP initiatives to foster economic independence in Kalobeyei, while supporting peace negotiations and economic recovery in Gaza to weaken reliance on politically controlled aid (Refugee Economies, 2024; Beaumont, 2025).

7. Balance Security and Access: Implement stringent monitoring to prevent diversion while ensuring sufficient aid reaches vulnerable civilians, and explore empowering neutral local governance structures in Gaza to curb Hamas dominance (Washington Institute, 2025).

Conclusion

The Kalobeyei and Gaza experiences reveal the complex interplay between humanitarian aid and local power structures. Informal leaders and political factions may resist aid reforms that threaten their influence, contributing to tension, unrest, and operational challenges. Addressing these issues requires transparent communication, substantive community engagement, protection of neutrality, robust oversight, and a commitment to sustainable, context-sensitive development. By doing so, humanitarian actors can better ensure that aid fulfills its core mission—reaching those in need—while navigating intricate political and social landscapes.

About the Author

Dr. Julius Kirimi Sindi is a global expert in research funding, policy impact, and donor relations. With extensive experience in analyzing philanthropy, business, and science funding, Dr. Sindi fosters sustainable and inclusive research ecosystems. He has facilitated international business relationships across Africa, Europe, and Asia. His upcoming book, "The Blueprint of Life Well Lived," explores successful strategies for navigating complex business environments while achieving sustainable growth.

References

Beaumont, P. (2025). The political motives behind the Gaza aid catastrophe. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-political-motives-behind-the-gaza-aid-catastrophe

Carey, J. (2025). UN warns of ‘death traps’ in Gaza food distribution amid escalating crisis. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1112012

European Commission. (2024). Makali Mamba: Power of refugee-driven community radio. https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/stories/makali-mamba-power-refugee-driven-community-radio_en

Harrell-Bond, B. (2022). Public camp secrets: Aid manipulation and power in refugee settlements. Journal of Refugee Studies, 35(1), 23-39.

Hroub, K. (2024). Hamas: Political organization and terror movement. Middle East Review, 36(2), 143–162.

Jacobsen, K., & Landau, L. (2019). Informal power and refugee camp governance. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(4), 676–693.

Levitt, M. (2025). How humanitarian aid keeps Hamas in power. Israel Hayom. https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/17/how-humanitarian-aid-keeps-hamas-in-power/

Nicholson, F., & Valenta, M. (2021). The power of local micro-structures in refugee camps. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 45–61.

Refugee Economies. (2024). Innovative practices: Kalobeyei. https://www.refugee-economies.org/innovative-practices/kalobeyei

Reuters. (2025, July 25). USAID analysis found no evidence of massive Hamas theft of Gaza aid. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/usaid-analysis-found-no-evidence-massive-hamas-theft-gaza-aid-2025-07-25/

Smith, J. (2025). Humanitarian transit areas and political conflict in Gaza. Journal of Conflict Studies, 17(3), 125–138.

The New Yorker. (2025). Exploring alternatives to militarized aid in Gaza. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-political-motives-behind-the-gaza-aid-catastrophe

Times of Israel. (2025, July 24). Netanyahu says Hamas taking control of humanitarian aid in Gaza. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-says-hamas-taking-control-of-humanitarian-aid-in-gaza/

UNHCR. (2023). Registration and identity management guidance. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/publications/registration-and-identity-management

UNHCR Kenya. (2024). Kalobeyei Integrated Social and Economic Development Programme. https://www.unhcr.org/ke/kalobeyei-settlement

UN News. (2025, July 20). UN accuses GHF food distribution sites in Gaza of endangering civilians. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1112012

Washington Institute. (2025). Countering Hamas’s shadow governance in Gaza. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/countering-hamass-shadow-governance-gaza