The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
The Israeli siege of Gaza has created a dire humanitarian crisis, with experts describing Israel’s “sustained blockade and deliberate restriction of food, medical supplies, fuel and humanitarian access” as violating core rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), and even “constitute war crimes.”[1] One United Nations (UN) official warned that Gaza has effectively become a “penal colony” under this regime.[2] The UN, along with other aid groups and international organisations, have condemned the restrictions as an attempt to use food “as a weapon” against civilians.[3] Under the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary IHL, besieging forces must allow relief consignments to reach civilians, as well as guaranteeing their protection (Articles 23, 59), and must not starve populations (ICRC Customary IHL Rule 53).[4] In Gaza, however, food distribution has been entrusted to a new private initiative – the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – which critics argue flouts these vital protections.
IHL Obligations on Food and Relief
International humanitarian law imposes stringent obligations protecting civilians’ access to food. Customary IHL forbids using starvation as a method of warfare, and it explicitly protects objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (such as foodstuffs and facilities, farmland, crops, and water infrastructure).[5] Parties to a conflict must permit rapid, unimpeded access for humanitarian aid (ICRC Rule 55).[6] The Fourth Geneva Convention reinforces these norms: Article 23 mandates free passage of relief consignments, including medical supplies, food, and clothing, and Article 55 obliges occupying powers to ensure the provision of adequate food and medical supplies to the population. Under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (to which Palestine is a party), intentionally starving civilians or impeding relief supplies constitute war crimes.[7] In the context of Gaza, these obligations are especially acute: a blanket blockade and the destruction of food infrastructure risks collective punishment against civilians, prohibited by Geneva Convention IV Article 33, as well as starvation, both of which amount to war crimes under IHL.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is a private, United States (US)-backed food aid initiative launched in late May 2025, shortly after Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza.[8] Headquartered in Delaware, the GHF presents itself as a rapid food delivery solution, claiming to operate “safely and directly” in Gaza.[9] In practice, it has created four “fortified distribution hubs”, or what it calls “Secure Distribution Sites” inside the Gaza Strip, each surrounded by Israeli forces.[10] Aid recipients must travel long distances, enter evacuated combat zones, and submit to biometric registration at these hubs. Private US security and logistics firms, seemingly including UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions (the latter of which was allegedly founded by a former CIA and Blackwater-associated paramilitary officer), handle most transportation and site security.[11] Notably, the GHF’s Swiss branch was dissolved for a lack of transparency, and the organisation has refused to disclose its donors or financial reports.[12] The US government has also provided a large grant (reportedly around $30 million), whilst foregoing the usual USAID auditing and vetting procedures.[13]
This model bypasses neutral UN and non-governmental (NGO) channels; UNRWA, UNICEF, MSF, and other experienced aid agencies have been excluded from GHF’s operations following its replacement of 400 non-militarised, UN-operated aid hubs. These were shut down due to unsubstantiated claims by Israel that Hamas was syphoning and diverting aid from it.[14] The GHF claims to have delivered millions of meals (more than 52 million in five weeks, according to a Reuters report), but this came alongside claims that “nearly all” supplies from other humanitarian NGOs had been looted.[15] In sum, it is evident that the GHF is a politicised and militarised relief effort: an ad-hoc start-up backed by Israeli and US authorities, lacking neutrality and transparency typical of a humanitarian organisation, and employing armed contractors rather than neutral humanitarian or other workers.
Humanitarian Impact on Civilians
The GHF’s operations have had a devastating humanitarian toll. By early July 2025, Gaza medical authorities reported over 500 Palestinian civilians killed in shootings near GHF distribution centres and transit routes.[16] According to data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), an organisation that collects and analyses data from armed conflicts, at least 1,300 Palestinians have been killed at or near GHF sites.[17] In addition, the average number of Palestinians killed seeking aid during the year preceding the GHF’s arrival was 30 per month. However, that figure rose to 500 per month following the onset of the GHF’s operations.[18]
Eyewitness and NGO accounts describe chaotic ‘dash-and-grab’ scenes; aid sites open only briefly (often as little as 8–11 minutes, according to GHF announcements), triggering chaos in which people are trampled, injured, or shot. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) reported that two of its primary health centres in Gaza admitted hundreds of gunshot victims at aid points, many with fatal chest or abdominal wounds.[19] The NGO, Save the Children, noted that in over 50% of mass-casualty incidents at these sites, children were among the fatalities.[20]
The UN has warned that this system is “inherently unsafe” and comprises a violation of humanitarian impartiality rules as well as international standards on aid distribution.[21] Likewise, Philippe Lazzarini, chief of the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), called the mechanism:
“an abomination that humiliates and degrades desperate people. It is a death trap costing more lives than it saves,”
observing that only the physically strongest (generally men and boys) can reach the aid while the elderly, women, and children, are largely excluded.[22] In a joint statement released in June, over 170 NGOs (including Amnesty International, Norwegian Refugee Council, MSF, Oxfam, and Save the Children) called for countries to pressure Israel to end GHF operations, and restore UN-coordinated aid delivery. According to this statement, “Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families.”[23]
Meanwhile, basic supplies continue to be withheld: the UN has confirmed that, due to Israel’s blockade, Gaza faces famine. An analysis by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that, as of August 2025, the highest phase of acute food insecurity, Famine (IPC Phase 5), with reasonable evidence, has been confirmed by the Gaza Governorate. Over half a million people within the Gaza Strip face “catastrophic conditions characterised by starvation, destitution and death.”[24]
Legal Violations: Starvation, Collective Punishment and Complicity
Under IHL, there are express obligations intended to protect food and civilians’ access to it; using food deprivation or starvation to coerce a population is expressly prohibited. The current blockade, coupled with the GHF approach, raises multiple legal red flags: starvation as a method of warfare (a war crime), obstruction of relief operations, and collective punishment of civilians. By restricting all commercial and UN humanitarian supplies into Gaza, and by dismantling neutral aid networks, the occupying power, Israel, appears to be in breach of Geneva Convention IV 1949 (GCIV).
Article 55 GCIV expressly obliges an occupying power to ensure the food supply of the population, and that:
“it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.”
In addition, Article 23 provides that relief consignments be allowed free passage, stating that:
“It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs.”
Furthermore, customary IHL provides further protections to prevent the weaponisation of food in armed conflict. Denying fuel, destroying farmland, and seizing UN warehouses amount to violations of:
- Rule 54: on the protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the population.
- Rule 53: on the prohibition of the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare.[25]
The GHF’s questionable approach to aid distribution likewise raises legal alarms; with its strategic control over the flow of aid lessening during episodes of low visibility, and easing off somewhat when warnings of famine increase, alongside almost daily massacres and shootings at food distribution sites in Gaza.[26] Furthermore, war-weary, and often malnourished, Palestinians are forced to traverse conflict zones to find one of these four, isolated aid distribution hubs, without access to essential or basic services beyond limited food parcels.
As an indication of the gravity of this situation, these actions are being treated as war crimes by international bodies. In November 2024 the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant on charges that include the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.[27] The ongoing ICC investigation into Gaza and Palestine suggests senior Israeli officials could be prosecuted for these grave breaches. In parallel, the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide claim brought by South Africa against Israel, where the argument has been made that intentional starvation and mass harm to civilians may amount to genocidal acts. All these developments and proceedings on the international stage demonstrate how the Gaza crisis has been recognised as potentially triggering the gravest international crime: genocide.
The GHF and its operations may involve complicity in these crimes. Experts have warned that anyone participating in or facilitating the GHF’s militarised distribution could be criminally liable. To that effect, in June 2025, a coalition of 15 prominent human rights and legal groups (including the ECCHR, TRIAL International, and FIDH) issued an open letter alerting states, companies, donors, and individuals to their potential legal liability for complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.[28] They specifically cautioned that inflicting or supporting forced civilian population transfers (a blatant violation of Article 49 GCIV) or contributing to starvation “as a method of warfare” may result in prosecution under universal jurisdiction.
Moreover, the GHF’s use of private US armed contractors and security services, in coordination with Israeli forces, blurs the line between humanitarian aid and military operation.[29] If civilians are coerced or forced to approach armed distribution points, and are shot, harmed, or driven from their homes in the process, this could amount to complicity in those IHL violations. Any nationals or firms involved (from Safe Reach Solutions security personnel to private contractors and consulting companies advising on GHF) could thus face liability under domestic or international law.
Additionally, certain reports indicate that “private equity interests are financially embedded in GHF’s operations”.[30] This raises grave concerns around the motivations behind companies’ involvement in aid provision, and threatens to turn humanitarian aid response into a discriminatory, politicised scheme instead of an obligation rooted in impartial, humanitarian, and legal norms. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, claimed that “the genocide carried out by Israel continues…because it is lucrative for many.”[31]
International Response and Calls for Change
The GHF model has drawn widespread rebuke from the humanitarian community. In addition to the joint statement issued by 171 NGOs, the UN has repeatedly accused the arrangement of being “inherently unsafe” and warned that it contravenes its crucial humanitarian principles requiring impartiality, independence, and neutrality.[32] UNICEF spokesperson James Elder stated that, “The plan appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic and will drive further displacement,” and deemed it a choice “between displacement and death…It’s dangerous to ask civilians to go into militarised zones to collect rations…humanitarian aid should never be used as a bargaining chip.”[33] Furthermore, the GHF’s emphasis on “only” delivering aid to those in need, as well as its declaration to “rigorously” audit humanitarian missions evoked further concern in humanitarian and UN staff, who view it as a way of restricting and controlling who receives aid.
According to a UN source, upon presenting its plan to the UN, the GHF “told us to accept working with them or leave. They’re coming to take over, weaponising aid.” The source added that “This is very much an Israeli idea and we don’t believe this is the appropriate answer to the dire situation” in the Gaza Strip.[34]
The UN Secretary-General, António Guteress, and human rights experts have invoked IHL, reminding the parties that starvation of civilians is explicitly banned. UN bodies (like the Committee on the Rights of the Child and humanitarians across various agencies) have deplored the “continued obstruction of aid” to Gaza and urged immediate opening of crossings.[35] Already in August 2025, multiple UN coordinators and international NGOs confirmed that famine was “irrefutably” underway in Gaza, amplifying calls for the need for an urgent policy reversal.[36]
Legal and political actors have also mobilised. In the US, Democratic senators (Warren, Van Hollen, Welch) publicly pressed the State Department for details on GHF funding and oversight. In early September 2025 they urged the administration to cease funding the GHF and instead allocate aid to experienced relief organisations, citing nearly 1,000 Gazan deaths near GHF sites and a lack of transparency as grounds for alarm.[37] These lawmakers stressed that humanitarian aid should never be a cover for military intelligence or combat operations.
Structural Implications for International Law
Some legal scholars warn that the crisis in Gaza, where hundreds of thousands are caught up in a man-made famine, may prove to be a turning point for the entire IHL regime.[38] Analysts conclude that the collapse of the impartial aid network in favour of a profit-driven, militarised scheme “erodes the legal and moral distinction between humanitarian assistance and military strategy.”[39] If starvation, collective punishment, and armed crowd-control at aid distribution sites become normalised without accountability, the very universality of IHL is at risk. As one commentary observes, allowing fundamental prohibitions to be “hollowed out” by powerful states undermines the credibility of the international legal order.[40] In sum, the ongoing crisis in Gaza is a test of whether core norms – protection of civilians, neutrality of aid, prohibition of war crimes – can be effectively enforced in modern conflicts. The answer may affect not only Palestinians, but all populations worldwide under siege: if IHL is not upheld here, its deterrent value elsewhere is severely weakened.