Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza constitutes a stress test of the effectiveness as well as the limits of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Recent practices – including the total blockade and destruction of food infrastructure to the introduction of a privatised aid distribution scheme by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) raises serious concerns about the undermining of legal safeguards under IHL.

After October 2023, Israel imposed a total blockade on food, fuel, and supplies to Gaza for months. The UN and international organisations have stated that Israel is ‘trying to use food as a weapon’ and that using collective punishment and starvation as a weapon of war has made Gaza ‘practically uninhabitable’.

According to assessments by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), nearly a quarter of Gaza’s population are facing ‘catastrophic hunger’ signalling widespread starvation and the entire population experiencing acute food insecurity. As of July 23, over 100 NGOs have warned of ‘mass starvation’ in Gaza, that Israel is accused of being responsible for.

Israel’s obligations

Given the devastating impact of war, IHL strictly prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare and requires the protection of civilians’ access to food, water, and humanitarian assistance. These legal duties are particularly stringent in situations of occupation or siege, where the civilian population is rendered especially vulnerable to deprivation.

Withholding food and water during sieges, destroying foodstuffs and supplies, and impeding production and distribution of food qualify as deliberate, which constitutes as using starvation as warfare.

There are also protections for objects that are vital to civilian survival, including farmland, water infrastructure, and food facilities. These rules, among others, recognised by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) apply in armed and non-international armed conflicts and are binding on all parties.

Israel, as a party to the four Geneva Conventions 1949, is bound by these rules. It is obligated to ensure the provision of essential supplies to civilian populations under its control or occupation, and must even bring in the necessary items if local sources are insufficient.

In addition, although Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ICC has jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem following Palestine’s accession in 2015. Under the Rome Statute, intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, including by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival or wilfully impeding relief supplies is explicitly recognised as a war crime.

It also criminalises wilful killing, wilfully killing causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and using the presence of civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations (e.g. as human shields). Furthermore, the intentional and systematic nature of Israel’s actions may further support their classification as crimes against humanity.

In December 2019, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor formally opened a formal investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the OPT. In November 2024 arrest warrants were issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of using starvation as a method of warfare and the wilful killing of civilians. As of February 2025, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office affirmed that the Palestine investigation continues with urgency and that the arrest warrants remain in effect.

Given the universal jurisdiction obligations arising, all state parties - including most European countries – are legally bound to cooperate with the ICC. This includes executing arrest warrants and ensuring that individuals suspected of international crimes are not granted safe haven or impunity.

Privatising humanitarian relief

In May 2025, amidst a total blockade on aid entering Gaza, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was launched as a private alternative to traditional humanitarian relief efforts. It claims to deliver food ‘safely and directly’, but its operations have triggered serious concerns. More than 170 NGOs are accusing the foundation of being in violations of IHL and are calling for it to be shut down.

The GHF is headquartered in Delaware, US, with a now-defunct branch in Switzerland which was dissolved on administrative grounds - including failure to meet transparency standards and compliance with Swiss regulations. The organisation is currently led by interim executive director John Acree, who replaced Jake Wood after he resigned on the grounds that GHF is unable to uphold IHL principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence.

Replacing UN’s 400 non-militarised aid points, the foundation operates four fortified distribution hubs with biometric checkpoints that are positioned across active conflict zones for some two million Palestinians in southern Gaza, far from many of the displaced. The hubs, described as ‘death traps’ are secured by armed guards reportedly using bullets, stun grenades and pepper spray.

The GHF food distribution sites are located in the evacuation zones, meaning that civilians seeking foods are forced to enter areas they had been ordered to leave. Created to bypass expert UN and independent humanitarian channels, GHF effectively forces civilians to walk long distances to access aid, often through dangerous areas, excluding vulnerable populations from effective relief.

Since the end of May, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed while they were trying to access GHF food distribution sites – many more have been injured. The deaths are also happening at sites controlled by GHF’s armed security guards – though the foundation says it bears no responsibility for deaths outside its perimeters.

Promoted and backed by Israel and the US, GHF uses private security and logistic companies to deliver aid into Gaza. Reportedly, these include UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions, the latter founded by former CIA paramilitary officer Philip F. Reilly who also served with Constellis – the parent company of the private military firm Blackwater.

To date, GHF has not disclosed its donor lists or published financial reports. It has declined to identify which government provided it with $100 million in start-up money, although funding for the effort reportedly comes from the Israeli government itself.

Despite the hundreds of death already reported, the Trump administration announced that it would donate $30m to the organisation.

In addition to food distribution, GHF is also working on a multibillion dollar project to establish ‘transit camps’ inside and outside Gaza.

Moreover, reports suggest that private equity interests are financially embedded in GHF’s operations, raising serious questions about commercial motivations behind aid delivery. As noted by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine ‘the genocide carried out by Israel continues […] because it is lucrative for many.’

The GHF is a domestically incorporated private entity, with no status in international law and with no mandate under any treaty. Unlike traditional humanitarian actors like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the GHF operates outside established humanitarian coordination mechanisms and functions at the intersection of militarised logistics and private finance, rather than humanitarian principles.

The deployment of private security and logistics firms, including those with direct links to military and intelligence services introduces a ‘for-profit, security first logic’ into a space that IHL requires to remain demilitarised and independent.

Turning point

The ongoing situation in Gaza maybe a turning point for the IHL. Failure to respect and enforce its rules may have far ranging consequences for the future of armed conflict. The sustained blockade, deliberate denial of food, fuel and humanitarian relief shows an alarming lack of respect for IHL. It also reveals a deeper structural crisis: the collapse of impartial humanitarian aid in favour of a privatised, militarised model exemplified by the GHF which erodes the legal and moral distinction between humanitarian assistance and military strategy.

Denying commercial food supplies, destroying agricultural infrastructure, and replacing impartial aid networks with politicised private initiatives violate humanitarian obligations as well as actively dismantling the protective function of IHL.

Starvation as a weapon, obstruction of aid, and targeting civilians at food sites are not simply policy choices; they are prosecutable war crimes. Moreover, GHF’s operations and the use of private US contractors and security forces with close ties to Israeli military forces may amount to complicity in war crimes and violations of IHL.

At present, legal accountability is unfolding on multiple fronts: from the ongoing investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC, to the genocide proceedings at the ICJ, this all underscores a growing consensus that core international norms are being violated on a systemic scale.

But beyond accountability, Gaza exposes the fragility of international legal enforcement in modern conflicts. It raises a fundamental question of whether international norms, however well-established, can be hollowed out by political shielding, selective application and outsourcing of responsibility. In this context, the stake is not only the respect and enforcement of humanitarian obligations, but the credibility and legitimacy of international law itself.

When fundamental norms prohibiting starvation, collective punishment and the targeting of civilians are systematically violated with limited consequences, it undermines the claim that international law serves as a universal constraint of power. Whether IHL continues to function as a meaningful legal framework depends not only on doctrinal coherence but on the political will and institutional integrity to enforce it, consistently, impartially and without exception.

Dr Irene Pietropaoli is a Senior Research Fellow in Business and Human Rights and joined BIICL in October 2018. She is the Director of the Human Rights Due Diligence Forum  and conducts research and training programmes on corporate human rights and environmental due diligence. For example she leads BIICL's research on human rights in global supply chains and BIICL's short course on business and human rights.  Irene is also leading BIICL's work on Artificial Intelligence  and its links with business and human rights.

Dr Sara Razai is a Research Leader and International Projects Lead at BIICL, based at the Centre for Comparative Law. She specialises in human rights, justice reform, and empirical legal research, with a particular focus on the MENA region and the Global South.

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or its staff.