Beyond the tent: critical reflections on shelter standards in response to the Gaza genocide

The tent has historically symbolised the emergency humanitarian response, yet in the Gaza Strip, it has become a silent witness to the failure and inadequacy of existing shelter standards. The current housing crisis is not merely a shortage of supplies or a flawed distribution of tents – it is an outright structural catastrophe that exposes the shortcomings of humanitarian standardisation in contexts defined by siege, near-total destruction, and systematic violence. With 90% of the population displaced and approximately 81% of structures in Gaza City damaged or destroyed, the reality has drastically shifted from ‘emergency, temporary displacement’ to a state of prolonged, inhumane, and forced residency that fundamentally threatens the very existence of the population.

Critical reflection on shelter standards is no longer a luxury, but an ethical and procedural necessity imposed by the gravity of the disaster. As practitioners and researchers, we must pose the essential questions: What crucial lessons have we overlooked in applying these standards within the restricted context of the Gaza genocide? And what are the real implications for future humanitarian programmes and the institutional consequences of this systemic failure?

The standard collapses against Gaza’s triple reality

Statistical evidence and situation reports prove that global shelter standards, such as the Sphere Standards (mandating 3.5–5.5 square metres per person, depending on the climate), are rendered inapplicable and ineffective under the immense restrictions imposed and the population density. This collapse does not reflect the failure of the standard itself, but a failure to adapt it to three structural realities on the ground:

1. Environmental and material collapse: shelter as a multiplier of health risks

In Gaza, temporary shelter consistently fails to provide essential protection, becoming instead a multiplying factor for health and environmental risks.

• Lethal density: Overcrowding has surpassed all global rates, with families sometimes occupying spaces below 1 square metre per person. This has led directly to a shelter-related public health crisis, including an increase in enteric diseases and dermatological diseases within overcrowded displacement centres. Plastic tents, due to poor ventilation and sewage contamination, become environments that incubate disease.
• Severe restrictions on building materials: Due to the ongoing Israeli blockade, humanitarian partners are restricted from importing essential ‘hard building’ materials such as insulation panels, light wooden planks, and durable sewage pipes. These items are arbitrarily classified as ‘dual-use items’. This forces the displaced to rely on fragile plastic sheeting, pushing them to use primitive alternatives like empty flour bags or shredded United Nations (UN) sacks to reinforce their shelter structures, which are obviously lacking when it comes to providing necessary warmth and shelter. These restrictions have crippled organisations’ ability to construct dignified latrines and safe bathing spaces, further worsening the crisis.

2. Shelter on shaky ground: the conflict of dignity and existential security

Temporary shelter often creates an existential conflict for the displaced that extends beyond the immediate armed conflict.

• Security lost on disputed lands: Tents and temporary shelters are often erected randomly and precariously on public roads, rubble, or private lands, rather than on planned, safe sites. This situation leaves the displaced under constant threat of forced eviction or ongoing conflict with landowners, adding a social and legal dimension to their insecurity.
• The price of dignity in the context of Gaza: A significant number of displaced people in Gaza are establishing tents and temporary shelters, often on private land or within public facilities – such as schools, stadiums, roads, and the roofs of damaged buildings – because these are the only spaces available following the massive scale of destruction. Furthermore, under the Israeli blockade and stringent restrictions on the entry of essential shelter materials (tents, caravans, timber), upgrading these provisional dwellings becomes nearly impossible or prohibitively expensive.
• A lack of legal protection: Shelter assistance is provided as a logistical solution entirely separated from the critical process of damage and ownership documentation, specifically housing, land and property (HLP) documentation. This separation leaves the displaced without the material and legal proof of their destroyed assets, thus eroding their psychological safety and making them vulnerable to losing future claims for compensation or reconstruction. The lack of any credible guarantees or binding mechanisms to ensure large-scale reconstruction of destroyed homes in Gaza contributes to ongoing anxiety and uncertainty among displaced families about their future housing prospects.

3. Neglect of vulnerable groups: lost privacy and protection

Amidst unprecedented overcrowding, standards for vulnerable groups have severely eroded, leading to profound and disturbing humanitarian consequences.

• Loss of security and privacy: In shelters where hundreds of people share a single toilet facility, women and girls dramatically lose their privacy and security, significantly increasing the risk of gender-based violence. The absence of safe separation spaces (such as private, enclosed washing and bathing areas) is a direct failure to uphold the minimum protection standards that the humanitarian sector must adhere to.
• Exclusion of people with disabilities and the elderly: Temporary shelters commonly lack the minimum requirements for access (such as ramps) or private care spaces. This exclusion isolates the people who rely on such accommodations, such as those with disabilities and the elderly, exacerbating their suffering and making the process of meeting their basic needs far more difficult that it needs to be.

Courses of action for a paradigm shift

The lessons learned from Gaza point to the need for a significant shift in how the humanitarian community responds to protracted and politically restricted disasters. This analysis proposes three policy transformations:

1. Adopting conditional cash and innovative alternatives as high policy

The focus must urgently shift from attempting to import restricted materials to providing conditional cash assistance. This grants families the independence to buy alternative local materials or secure (even partial) rentals, restoring their dignity and agency in decision-making. Donors must impose an ‘adaptation conditionality’ on cash designated for shelter to ensure it is used to improve the climatic and health resilience of temporary shelter (e.g., buying thick plastic sheeting or other basic insulation materials). Humanitarian agencies must develop ‘local market lists’ for available materials rather than relying exclusively on restricted international supplies.

2. Securing the future: linking temporary shelter to guarantees of return and reconstruction

Temporary shelter must be directly linked to the process of immediate legal documentation of property and damage (HLP documentation). This is to guarantee that the acceptance of any form of temporary shelter does not nullify or diminish peoples’ future claims for compensation or full reconstruction on their land. Humanitarian organisations must cooperate with the UN and legal bodies to establish a documented and internationally recognised registry that guarantees the property rights of the displaced. Separating humanitarian aid from legal assurance is a dereliction of the duty to protect victims’ rights.

3. Defining ‘minimum resilience’ standards, not solely ‘minimum area’ standards

The Sphere Standard in siege contexts must be adapted to focus on ‘minimum resilience against climatic and health conditions’ (focusing on insulation, safe sanitation, and ventilation), rather than focusing only on the unachievable square footage. This must translate into international pressure to permit the entry of insulation, heating and ventilation materials as a top priority, deeming them an integral part of basic humanitarian relief. The ‘safety of the shelter’s health environment’ must become the primary criterion, above square footage.

Conclusion: shelter is dignity and future, not just a structure

The Gaza genocide proves that effective humanitarian action fails when it ignores the political and rights-based dimensions of the crisis. The lessons learned confirm that effective shelter must be humane (providing dignity), rights-based (protecting the right of return and claims), and sustainable (flexibly adapting to scarcity).

The time has come to move beyond merely viewing ‘the tent’ as the end of the line, and to delve deeper into what lies beyond the structure: the dignity, security and future of the individuals and communities we serve.

Rabah Al-ashqar is an independent humanitarian expert and researcher focusing on shelter, urban displacement, and rights-based programming in protracted conflicts and besieged environments. His work emphasises the intersection of humanitarian standards and practical field application.