How to Stave Off a Famine in Gaza

Amid all the attempts to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas and the furor over the ongoing demonstrations at U.S. college campuses, the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Gaza Strip remains dire. More than 75 percent of Gaza’s population, or 1.7 million people, is displaced. A majority of all buildings are destroyed. Clean water is scarce. More than a million Palestinians in Gaza face what the World Food Program is calling “catastrophic levels of hunger.” If that develops into a famine, it would dramatically increase the numbers of the dead from the current 34,000.

How can these conditions be alleviated? Can famine be staved off? What role can the international community and aid organizations play?

I spoke with two experts on the latest edition of FP Live: Sari Bashi, the program director for Human Rights Watch, and Shira Efron, the Israel Policy Forum’s director of research. Bashi joined the program from the West Bank, while Efron was in Tel Aviv. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box atop this page or download the FP Live podcast. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.

Ravi Agrawal: Sari, I know your in-laws live in Gaza. I’m sorry for what they must be going through. How is the family holding up?

Sari Bashi: Like most people in Gaza, my in-laws have been displaced. Early on, they fled the refugee camp in which they lived in northern Gaza. They’ve since been advised that all of their homes have been destroyed. And they’re sheltering in Rafah, near the southern border with Egypt. They’re luckier than some. They’re in a building as opposed to tents, and they are able to access some food and water. But they’re very scared right now. Because one of the concerns about Gaza is that although the Israeli military has been issuing evacuation orders, the places that they tell people to flee to are not actually safe. So, as we hear more reports of a Rafah invasion, that’s a scary proposition.

RA: Do you have a sense of what life is like for them?

SB: It’s difficult to communicate what life is like there. It’s been six months. It’s constant bombardment, constant uncertainty. People spend most of their days just trying to survive, to get food, medicine, water, to try to manage sanitation, which when you put that many people in such a small area, it’s actually quite dire. How do you get rid of waste when there are so many people cramped together like that? I don’t know that we can fully understand what they’re going through.

RA: Shira, how much aid is getting into Gaza right now? My understanding is that Israel and the United Nations differ on the exact numbers, but between 300 and 400 trucks of aid are now going in every day. This is significantly up since the furor over the deaths of seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen about a month ago. But before Oct. 7, about 500 aid trucks were going in daily.

Shira Efron: That is correct. Israel’s evolving humanitarian policy has shifted quite dramatically since Oct. 7. And now we are seeing days where the number of trucks even tops 400. There have been significant developments since the World Central Kitchen workers were tragically killed by the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. As of [this week], all crossings that were open prior to Oct. 7 are now operational again. There’s Rafah through Egypt, Kerem Shalom, Ashdod Port. The Erez crossing in the north, which was used beforehand mostly for people, is now used for bringing goods in. And there’s the maritime [joint logistics over-the-shore, or JLOTS] pier that the United States is building. And airdrops have been allowed by Israel in larger quantities than before. So we are seeing much more aid coming in.

We are also looking at the composition of aid. Fuel was a huge issue before, and now Israel has increased the quantities of fuel to allow for sanitation, wastewater plants, operating bakeries. If we had this conversation two months ago or even a month ago, we would be in a very different situation. Is Israel doing enough? Probably not. Is it too little, too late? Can it repair? It will take us time to see the impacts of the change in policy. But the state of play now is that there’s been remarkable improvement, at least in what Israel allows in. Now, there are a lot of logistical problems in how you distribute this aid and make sure those in need actually get it. And that’s a separate question.

SB: I see the situation a little bit differently. I agree that things have gotten better in the past few weeks, but we’re still at a monthly average of just 40 percent of truckloads going in compared to before the war. And we have to remember that the situation is quite different. Before the war, Gaza was engaging in independent food production. Water was being piped in. Electricity was being generated. In other words, the needs were much less. And we are at less than half of that capability for a population that has been suffering from six months of intensive bombardment and destruction of basic infrastructure. So it’s better than it was a few weeks ago. But it’s very far from what we need to stave off famine.

The Israeli government is still denying visas to humanitarian aid workers. Last month, they rejected 25 percent of requests to deliver to northern Gaza.

I think the most important thing is we haven’t seen a change in the policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government has been clear that they are using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip for the return of civilian hostages. It is a war crime to hold those Israeli hostages in Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad need to release them unconditionally and immediately. But that war crime doesn’t justify the war crime that the Israeli authorities are committing of using starvation as a weapon of war. And I have not seen a rollback or a change in that policy.

If there were a decision by the Israeli government to abide by its obligations, not just to stop preventing aid but to actively supply the aid as it is required to do as an occupying power that dismantled the ability of the local government to operate, at least in northern Gaza? Then we would see a change.

SE: Where I differ from Sari is I think Israeli decision-makers are now terrified. And they understand that they have to change their policy. If there’s one anecdote that illustrates this, the Israeli minister of defense, who on Oct. 9—and he’s quoted in the ICJ [International Court of Justice] order—said there will not be any water or food going to Gaza, stood [this week] next to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Kerem Shalom crossing and said on primetime TV that we are going to increase humanitarian assistance dramatically to Gaza because it’s in our interest. Does Israel do it because it believes it has a moral responsibility? No. Do they do it because they are afraid of international pressure and the ICJ and ICC [International Criminal Court]? Of course. But the fact is that we are seeing a change in policy that, like Sari, I hope will be sustained and expanded.

RA: You said Israel’s government now appears terrified. What is terrifying them?

SE: First of all, the International Court of Justice, which is deliberating a case. There is the fear of personal accusations of Israeli leaders for committed war crimes. We haven’t heard of that happening, but I know that in the prime minister’s office, there’s a real fear that he personally, but also other senior commanders in the IDF and other politicians, will be accused like Vladimir Putin, like Slobodan Milosevic.

Read More

Top House Democrat ‘Deeply Worried’ About Israel’s War Strategy in Gaza

Israel is losing the support of Democrats over how it’s prosecuting the war, lawmaker warns.

Situation Report

|

Robbie Gramer, Jack Detsch

Egypt Is Obliged to Let Gaza Refugees In

Cairo’s decision to seal the border has exacerbated a humanitarian disaster. It’s also illegal.

Argument

|

Alice Jill Edwards

How to Get More Aid Into Gaza

A joint international task force could quickly mobilize an emergency system to clear shipments through the Rafah border crossing.

Argument

|

Mohannad Sabry

RA: Sari, Israel assesses that a famine is not imminent, but aid organizations disagree.

SB: It is the assessment of the humanitarian organizations and their workers who are risking their lives in order to actually deliver aid, as well as testimonies from families who are not able to get food. People are using birdseed as food. At least 27 children were reported to have died of malnutrition [as of April]. Human Rights Watch has documented children wasting away, infants dying of dehydration. So the situation is quite dire.

The Israeli government knows that. And the Israeli government has been occupying Gaza since 1967. They know exactly what’s going on there. They know how much food is required. They’ve calculated the number of calories that people in Gaza need in order to survive, and they know how to get enough food in there. The International Court of Justice order was that the Israeli government needs to ensure that adequate food gets in. Not try to ensure. The Israeli government knows how to do that.

And I agree that they might have been influenced by words from U.S. President Joe Biden. But the United States could do more than words. They could suspend arms transfers to the Israeli military until such time as the Israeli military complies with international law. That would be terrifying. That would lead to a change in policy because I have not seen a decision by the Israeli government to end the policy of starvation as a weapon of war.

They know what to do. They can flood Gaza with aid. They can use their troops in northern Gaza to deliver the aid, because they have dismantled the government in northern Gaza. There’s no functioning government. And, notably, in the International Court of Justice, the only Israeli judge, the ad hoc judge who was appointed to the panel, signed on to the provisional order that ordered the Israeli military to ensure that enough aid reached Gaza—ensure, as the obligation of an occupying power that is in control and has the ability and the obligation to make sure the food gets to hungry people.

SE: I agree, and this is part of the motivation of Israel.

In terms of the IDF itself delivering aid, we can speak a lot about the rapprochement that’s probably needed between Israel and the U.N. all the way up and down. But when you speak with the U.N. folks on the ground and in leadership, they are very principled in terms of how much proximity they’re willing to have with the IDF. Even in response to the JLOTS, the U.N. has initially said that they would not be participating in the distribution because the IDF will secure part of the operation. And this is from the same U.N. that said that they would be fine being escorted by Hamas police.

I, like you, think that Israel is responsible, and it’s also in not only its moral responsibility and legal responsibility but also its strategic imperative for Israel to do this if they want to achieve any of their war aims. But Israel is not alone in this.

RA: And also UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency that has a mandate to operate in Gaza, has been stymied after accusations that it had some workers who cooperated with Hamas. Sari, how does the U.N. fit in?

SB: There are two kinds of obligations. One obligation is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid by others. So that means facilitating what the U.N. and other humanitarian organizations are doing, including UNRWA. The actions that Israel has taken to try to defund UNRWA, to try to dismantle UNRWA, have been incredibly detrimental. If you want to ensure the humanitarian aid gets in, you probably shouldn’t pressure foreign governments to stop funding the single largest organization delivering humanitarian aid and playing a critical role in Gaza.

But beyond that, the Israeli government has an obligation to supply the aid itself. They’ve done that in very limited ways, like bringing fuel to Al-Shifa Hospital. They need to do it in a much more significant way. And that doesn’t contradict their obligation to let the U.N. deliver the aid. But when you bomb humanitarian convoys, when you refuse to allow them to travel or you delay them at checkpoints, when you do not try to pave the road so they can actually get through, that’s not facilitating aid.

And again, the Israeli government knows how to do this. This is the fifth war in Gaza that I’ve documented as a human rights activist. In no previous war has the Israeli government stopped drinking water from entering Gaza. They have never cut off humanitarian aid and proudly declared that they were doing so. This is a problem of political will.

I agree that U.S. pressure has been helpful. But there’s something that would be even more helpful, which is to stop supplying the weapons. There’s an imperative for that from the point of view of the U.S. taxpayer because all parties that are supplying Israel, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad risk complicity in those crimes because of their arms. So this includes Iran, which has been supplying Hamas and Islamic Jihad and committed war crimes against Israeli civilians. And this would include the United States and others that are funding and supplying arms to Israel. And I will say this is not a crazy idea. Canada has stopped. They’ve suspended their arms transfers to the Israeli government. If the United States and others would follow suit, we’d be closer to seeing the Israeli government ensure that the aid reaches people in adequate quantities.

RA: Shira, how is Israel thinking through the international reaction, from the university protests to the ICC to potential U.S. withdrawal of aid, when developing its strategic perspective?

SE: Israelis initially had the calculus that putting this pressure, a siege if you will, on Gaza might factor into the calculations of [Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar, put pressure on him, and make him release hostages and surrender. This was clearly very foolish to expect from an adversary who they should have known is not prioritizing their civilian population.

The policy has backfired substantially. It’s not just Canada, by the way. There are six other governments banning sales of weaponry and components to Israel, and many other parliaments there are discussing it. There’s the ICJ lawsuit; there’s the ICC.

Israel basically started this war with lots of sympathy from the world. If we want to take a metaphor from a different conflict around the world, Israel started the war as Ukraine, and seven months after, it’s Russia. So, in a sense, what the humanitarian debacle, I would call it on the part of Israel, basically means is that the world does not back Israel as it has initially. From an Israeli national security perspective, Israel got all this backing, and this backing is now questionable. There are calls for Israel to go for a cease-fire in Gaza even without getting the hostages because the international community is terrified about the humanitarian catastrophe.

RA: Sari, if Israel takes more steps to allow more aid into Gaza, who would be in charge?

SB: I mean, right now there are a lot of people operating in Gaza. It’s just that their operations are constrained. Humanitarian workers should be allowed to do their jobs. That means stop killing them. It means open up the roads for them. It means approve the requests to deliver to secure convoys coming in. It means grant visas to humanitarian aid workers. Human Rights Watch had researchers in Al-Arish on the Egyptian-Gaza border, and we interviewed humanitarian workers who were saying that the Israeli government has provided no lists of what’s forbidden; if a truckload arrives with an item that’s not allowed in (and it’s difficult to know what that is), the entire truck gets sent back.

People talk a lot about who should control Gaza in the day after. I think right now we need to look at who is already exercising control in Gaza. In northern Gaza, the Israeli government is exercising effective control. You have personnel there. You bring in the food. Armies do this all the time. It’s not that hard. It just requires a will. And in southern Gaza, where there is more of an aid operation, you would just need to facilitate the entry of those goods.

And in terms of plans for a Rafah invasion, one of the biggest concerns is that they’re planning to evacuate people to an area that has no infrastructure—not sanitation, not food, and certainly not aid delivery. So refraining from doing that would also be a good start.

RA: Shira, what would it look like were Israel to begin to cede some control that it has?

SE: I just don’t see what Sari is proposing occurring with the IDF actually administering northern Gaza. My fear is that unless we connect those technical issues and the humanitarian issue, if we don’t think about the day after and connect it to the political situation in Gaza, we’re just going to see more and more of that.

At the end of the day, if the hostages come back home? There’s a permanent cease-fire? Clearly, Hamas is going to be the victor. And the cease-fire is going to be violated because it always has been. I don’t see the international community coming in with the tens of billions of dollars required to reconstruct Gaza. So we will have some minimal recovery, and then the next operation will be back at those issues, unfortunately, as long as Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza. The jury’s still out. We don’t know if Hamas will stay as the de facto government of Gaza after this war, but it looks more and more likely that Israel will not be able to dismantle Hamas. As someone who lives in Tel Aviv and has legitimate security concerns from Hamas, we’re going to keep seeing those problems.

If there’s one silver lining from this catastrophe of Oct. 7 and the war that followed, it’s that maybe this is time to go back to basics and understand that we cannot look at Gaza in silo and West Bank in silo—we’re talking about Palestinian people. Whether Israelis like it or not, they’re here to stay. And the Israelis are not going anywhere. And we sort of back off this idea of the Palestinian state.

We can speak at length about the limitations of the Palestinian Authority. But at the end of the day, when we speak about Palestinian society, it’s a two-party system. There’s Hamas, and there’s Fatah. And alternative to Hamas is trying to think of how do we bring back—including with local powers inside Gaza—the Palestinian Authority, stop the divide between the West Bank and Gaza, and start creating the basics of a Palestinian state that hopefully one day can disconnect from Israel.

SB: I would just say that any conversation about who should rule Gaza should be a conversation that Palestinians have, including through free and fair elections. People talk about the Palestinian Authority as having international legitimacy, but it has international legitimacy because it’s propped up by Israel and the United States. And on that front, a related thing we’re seeing is a crackdown, within the West Bank, on political dissidents. So people belonging to other factions besides Fatah are being arrested and imprisoned in very large numbers in the West Bank. Many observers believe this is designed to quell any kind of alternative to the Palestinian Authority. So not doing that, and allowing Palestinians to exercise some agency in who should represent them, would be a good start.