IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/7zygu_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Structural hypocrisy in humanitarian aid: a justice-oriented counter-story of how donors fund both relief and destruction in Gaza

Author

Listed:
  • Espejo, Irene Ruiz
  • Bastable, Emily
  • Boxall, Jessica
  • Jacob, Chandni
  • Norton, Frankie
  • Pathak, Pathik

Abstract

Background: The latest military assault on Gaza by Israel, which began after 7 October 2023, has led to an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, with tens of thousands killed, nearly two million displaced, and famine officially declared in 2024. The near-total siege cut off food, water, electricity, and medical supplies, while relentless bombardments destroyed critical infrastructure, rendering Gaza unliveable. Many donor nations have simultaneously provided humanitarian aid to Gaza while supplying military assistance to Israel, underscoring the structural hypocrisy in international responses to the catastrophe in Gaza. Methods: In this article, we introduce and develop the concept of justice-oriented counter-stories (JOCS) to critically examine how quantitative datasets on humanitarian aid flows can distort reality and obscure key disparities. Using aid to Gaza in 2023–2024 as a case study, we apply JOCS to identify biases in official reporting and make statistical adjustments to offer an alternative perspective. Results: Our justice-oriented analytical lens shows how the countries humanitarian aid rankings shift significantly when we factor in donor nations’ GDP, and the structural hypocrisy of offering humanitarian aid while simultaneously providing significant military assistance to Israel. Our paper also identifies some of the key methodological challenges in making such adjustments. Conclusion: We conclude by emphasising the broader implications of “justice-oriented counter-stories” for understanding not only aid flows, but social justice and the representation of social and environmental issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Espejo, Irene Ruiz & Bastable, Emily & Boxall, Jessica & Jacob, Chandni & Norton, Frankie & Pathak, Pathik, 2025. "Structural hypocrisy in humanitarian aid: a justice-oriented counter-story of how donors fund both relief and destruction in Gaza," SocArXiv 7zygu_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:7zygu_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/7zygu_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67e29e2261b3109bf0497257/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/7zygu_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Gelman & Christian Hennig, 2017. "Beyond subjective and objective in statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 967-1033, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delbianco Fernando & Tohmé Fernando, 2023. "What is a relevant control?: An algorithmic proposal," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4643, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    2. Mayo, Deborah, 2024. "Error statistics, Bayes-factor Tests and the Fallacy of Non-exhaustive Alternatives," OSF Preprints tmgqd, Center for Open Science.
    3. Francesco De Pretis & Barbara Osimani, 2019. "New Insights in Computational Methods for Pharmacovigilance: E-Synthesis , a Bayesian Framework for Causal Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2024. "Opium in science and society: numbers and other quantifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5313-5346, September.
    5. Dimitris Korobilis & Kenichi Shimizu, 2022. "Bayesian Approaches to Shrinkage and Sparse Estimation," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 11(4), pages 230-354, June.
    6. Elena Grimaccia & Alessia Naccarato, 2019. "Food Insecurity Individual Experience: A Comparison of Economic and Social Characteristics of the Most Vulnerable Groups in the World," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 391-410, May.
    7. Jingjing He & Wei Wang & Min Huang & Shaohua Wang & Xuefei Guan, 2021. "Bayesian Inference under Small Sample Sizes Using General Noninformative Priors," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(21), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Claudia Biancotti & Alfonso Rosolia & Giovanni Veronese & Robert Kirchner & Francois Mouriaux, 2021. "Covid-19 and official statistics: a wakeup call?," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 605, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    9. Helfgott, Ariella & Midgley, Gerald & Chaudhury, Abrar & Vervoort, Joost & Sova, Chase & Ryan, Alex, 2023. "Multi-level participation in integrative, systemic planning: The case of climate adaptation in Ghana," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(3), pages 1201-1217.
    10. Wei-Chao Lin & Ching Chen, 2021. "Novel World University Rankings Combining Academic, Environmental and Resource Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Taisei Sugiyama & Nicolas Schweighofer & Jun Izawa, 2023. "Reinforcement learning establishes a minimal metacognitive process to monitor and control motor learning performance," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. repec:osf:osfxxx:tmgqd_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Jan Hannig & Hari Iyer, 2022. "Testing for calibration discrepancy of reported likelihood ratios in forensic science," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 267-301, January.
    14. John Deke & Mariel Finucane & Daniel Thal, "undated". "The BASIE (BAyeSian Interpretation of Estimates) Framework for Interpreting Findings from Impact Evaluations: A Practical Guide for Education Researchers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 5a0d5dff375d42048799878be, Mathematica Policy Research.
    15. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2019. "Null Hypothesis Testing ≠ Scientific Inference: A Critique of the Shaky Premise at the Heart of the Science and Values Debate, and a Defense of Value‐Neutral Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1520-1532, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:7zygu_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.