JERUSALEM — In a move reminiscent of the early blockade during its war with Hamas, Israel has halted the entry of all food and essential supplies into Gaza. The decision has drawn sharp rebukes from the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations, who are condemning it as a breach of international law.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry described the action as “a tool of extortion,” while Oxfam labeled it “a reckless act of collective punishment.” The Egyptian government, a key mediator in the conflict, accused Israel of employing “starvation as a weapon.”
Food scarcity has plagued the over 2 million residents of Gaza during the prolonged conflict, and experts have previously warned about the looming threat of famine. There is now heightened concern that recent progress made under a six-week ceasefire might be undone.
The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is attempting to coerce the Hamas militant group into agreeing to a United States-backed proposal. The proposal seeks to prolong the first phase of the ceasefire rather than proceeding to negotiations on the more challenging second phase. This next phase would involve Hamas releasing hostages in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and a lasting ceasefire.
With the first phase of the ceasefire ending early on Sunday morning, Israel announced its support for a new proposal to extend this phase until mid-April, which coincides with the Jewish holiday of Passover. The Israeli government attributed the proposal to a U.S. initiative spearheaded by Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff. Simultaneously, Israel cautioned that it might resume military actions if the negotiations do not yield fruit.
Negotiations pertaining to the second phase were anticipated to commence a month ago, adding to the prevailing uncertainty around the truce. Hamas has reiterated the necessity of initiating these discussions.
In the absence of an official statement from Washington, there is ambiguity regarding when Witkoff might return to the Middle East. The previous U.S. administration had urged Israel to permit more aid into Gaza and had threatened to curb weapons support, while numerous trucks carrying aid were left waiting to enter the area.
Israel maintains that it has permitted adequate aid but attributed shortages to what it described as the U.N.’s inability to distribute it effectively and accused Hamas of diverting the supplies.
Prior to the ceasefire, food scarcity led Palestinians to ration meals, scavenging through trash, and searching for edible wild plants. However, the initiation of the ceasefire on January 19 allowed for a substantial influx of aid into Gaza, averaging 600 trucks per day. This volume was expected to persist across all three ceasefire phases.
Nonetheless, Hamas has reported that less than half of the agreed-upon fuel trucks were allowed in, and entry permits for important livestock and feed were denied. Despite these shortages, the ceasefire allowed residents of Gaza to gather some supplies. “The ceasefire brought some much-needed relief to Gaza, but it was far from enough to cover the immense needs,” stated the Norwegian Refugee Council.
This latest Israeli announcement arrived shortly after the commencement of Ramadan in Gaza, where collective meals lined the streets amidst the ruins of buildings ravaged by war. The abrupt cessation of aid led to a surge in market activity as people scrambled to stock up, with prices reportedly tripling in Gaza.
Legal ramifications for Israel’s decision were immediate, with criticisms emphasizing the move as a violation. “International humanitarian law is clear: access to deliver vital lifesaving aid must be allowed,” asserted U.N. humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher.
Within hours of the announcement, five non-governmental organizations sought an interim order from Israel’s Supreme Court to prevent the state’s actions, arguing it contravenes international legal obligations and is tantamount to a war crime. These obligations, they contended, cannot be influenced by political motives.
The International Criminal Court previously suggested that Israel may have utilized “starvation as a method of warfare,” a charge that was pivotal in the issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and is a key component in South Africa’s genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice.
On Sunday, Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, reiterated Israel’s responsibility, as an occupying force, to facilitate humanitarian aid, according to the Geneva Conventions, condemning the country’s decision as a continuation of a “war-crime starvation strategy.”
