The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, intensified by the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, has reached catastrophic levels, with risks of famine and massive displacement affecting the territory's roughly 2 million residents. Ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches Gazans is a geopolitical requirement to maintain international support and work toward long-term stability.
Israel's responsibilities toward Gaza's civilian population are rooted in international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 55 mandates that an occupying power must ensure the provision of food, medical supplies, and other essentials to the population under its control to the fullest extent possible. Although Israel withdrew its citizens and troops from Gaza in 2005, its control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and maritime access leads many in the international community, including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to classify Israel as an occupying power with ongoing obligations, although this point is highly questionable. The blockade by Egypt and Israel, which has restricted aid since October 2023, has drawn accusations of violating IHL by exacerbating famine risks and denying civilians access to basic necessities.
The ICJ and UN agencies have repeatedly called for Israel to lift restrictions on aid to comply with these legal obligations. Failure to do so risks further legal challenges, including potential investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has already faced U.S. sanctions for probing alleged war crimes in the region. Ensuring aid delivery is thus critical for Israel to align with international law and avoid accusations of collective punishment, which could lead to formal charges or sanctions.
The moral case for ensuring humanitarian aid reaches Gazans is compelling, given the scale of suffering. Gaza's Health Ministry reports over 53,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, many of whom were terrorists, and 90% of the population displaced. The blockade has led to acute malnutrition, with thousands of children admitted to hospitals and adults also suffering from severe nutrient deficiencies. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that Gaza is at a "critical" risk of famine, a situation described as "uninhabitable" by the U.S. government.
Israel, as a democratic state with a commitment to human rights, faces an obligation to prevent such humanitarian catastrophes, particularly when its actions-- such as the blockade and military operations-- directly contribute to the crisis. Allies, including U.S. officials, have expressed concern over "images of hunger," indicating that the visible suffering of civilians undermines Israel's standing. Allowing aid to flow demonstrates a commitment to distinguishing between combatants and civilians, aligning with ethical principles that Israel publicly upholds.
Strategically, ensuring humanitarian aid reaches Gazans serves Israel's goal of weakening Hamas, the militant group that has controlled Gaza since 2007. Hamas has diverted aid to sustain its rule and military operations, leading to proposals for a new aid distribution system bypassing Hamas. However, the current blockade has inadvertently strengthened Hamas by fostering desperation among civilians, who may turn to the group for survival. There have been some rare anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, suggesting that public discontent with Hamas could grow if basic needs are met through alternative channels.
By facilitating aid under a controlled system, Israel can reduce Hamas's ability to exploit humanitarian resources while addressing civilian needs. The proposed U.S.-backed plan, though rejected by UN agencies for weaponizing aid, aims to secure distribution hubs with Israeli military oversight, potentially diminishing Hamas's influence. This approach could also foster goodwill among Gazans, who might support governance alternatives if their immediate survival is ensured, aligning with Israel's long-term security objective of neutralizing Hamas's control.
Geopolitically, Israel's decision to allow aid is driven by the need to maintain support from key allies, particularly the United States. Several U.S. senators and the Trump administration warned that continued images of hunger would erode their ability to back Israel's offensive. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have voiced concerns about the humanitarian crisis, signaling that even staunch supporters expect action to mitigate civilian suffering.
The international community, including the UN and European allies, has intensified criticism of Israel's blockade, with the UN's humanitarian chief criticizing Israel. Refusal to allow aid risks alienating allies and fueling anti-Israel sentiment globally, potentially leading to diplomatic isolation or reduced military and economic support. For instance, the UN and aid groups have rejected Israel's aid plan, citing violations of humanitarian principles, which could escalate tensions if no aid flows. By ensuring aid delivery, Israel can bolster its war effort and maintain the backing of allies critical to its security.
Ensuring humanitarian aid is also essential for laying the groundwork for long-term stability and potential conflict resolution. Allowing aid in will alleviate immediate suffering and create space for diplomatic efforts, such as ceasefire talks mediated by Egypt or Qatar.
Netanyahu's mention of "voluntary emigration" as a solution is fine if Gazans desire to leave the region although many countries have wrongly accused the plan of resembling ethnic cleansiing - which it is not. Gazans have a right to leave Gaza if they so choose - just as anyone in the world can. However, at the same time, addressing humanitarian needs could support alternative governance models, as suggested by Egypt's postwar plan, which allows Palestinians to remain in Gaza. By facilitating aid, Israel can signal openness to coexistence and reduce the narrative of perpetual conflict, potentially encouraging moderate voices within Palestinian society.
Domestically, Netanyahu faces pressure from his far-right coalition partners, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who advocate for a hardline approach, including blocking aid to "destroy" Hamas. However, public protests in Israel demanding hostage releases and an end to the war indicate growing fatigue with the conflict's human cost. Internationally, allies' insistence on aid reflects a broader expectation that Israel balance its security goals with humanitarian considerations. Balancing these pressures requires a pragmatic approach where limited, controlled aid serves as a compromise to appease both domestic critics and international allies.
Failing to ensure aid delivery carries significant risks. The ongoing blockade has led to accusations of war crimes, with the ICC and UN amplifying scrutiny. The humanitarian crisis could also destabilize the region further, as desperation in Gaza may spill over into neighboring Egypt or Jordan, straining Israel's relations with these partners. Moreover, the blockade's continuation could embolden Iran-backed groups like the Houthis, who have already targeted Israel in solidarity with Palestinians, escalating regional tensions.
Ensuring that Gazans receive humanitarian aid is critical for Israel to fulfill its legal obligations, uphold moral standards, advance strategic goals, maintain geopolitical alliances, and foster long-term stability. By implementing a transparent and effective aid system that bypasses Hamas while prioritizing civilian needs, Israel can mitigate the humanitarian crisis, weaken Hamas's grip, and preserve its international standing. Failure to act risks legal repercussions, moral condemnation, and strategic setbacks that could undermine Israel's security and global position. The path forward requires balancing security imperatives with humanitarian responsibilities, a challenge that will shape Israel's role in the region and the prospects for peace.
