I’m not sure why you’re conflating private charitable donations (which always flow from the wealthy to the poor) with state foreign aid which - aside from often being a morally decent thing - is often conditional and serves as a soft power lever for the British government to pull.
Despite your spirited attempts at late night internet research (a Syrian space program? Really?) this is just a copy-paste Facebook meme aimed at generating resentment from British people towards poor (and mostly non-white) foreign people. I would suggest if these people are so objectionable to you, then cutting our foreign aid to them might actually end up with more of them wanting to settle in our suddenly well-funded country.
You can’t even be bothered to do some day time internet research even when pointed in a direction which might help you. Having received it it might have been expected that they could have coped with problems using some of those funds without the need to immediately seek private charitable donations. That of course would be assuming that the money hasn't been squandered on expensive programs or embezzled.
To repeat your comment - a Syrian space program, really. Yes, see below.
My point about foreign aid is that some countries receiving it really don’t need it if they are capable of funding space and / or nuclear weapons programs. A bit like Elton John and the WFA.
On the other hand, we aren’t spending enough on flood defences or prevention. Or children’s breakfasts at school.
So the money could be better spent at home.
Soft levers! Don’t soft levers bend rendering them pretty ineffective?
When was the last time foreign aid earned the UK any respect or favours?
Your turn to prove your point.