Food as a Weapon of War: Revisiting the Right to Food in Gaza

Introduction:

Armed conflicts generate military, political and economic instability. Yet food insecurity stands out as the most severe consequence, acting as both a primary cause and a catastrophic result of war. This issue affects both those active in the war and those far away, as it challenges the most basic human right: the right to sufficient nourishment.

Armed conflict drives food insecurity as a result of how warring parties wage their battles and the disruption and degradation of food systems. More than half a million people in Gaza are trapped in famine, marked by widespread starvation, destitution and preventable deaths, according to a new Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) analysis that released that famine conditions are projected to spread from Gaza Governorate to the Deir Al Balah and Khan Younis Governorates in the coming weeks.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), UNICEF, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have collectively and consistently highlighted the extreme urgency for an immediate and full-scale humanitarian response given the escalating hunger-related deaths, rapidly worsening levels of acute malnutrition and plummeting levels of food consumption, with hundreds of thousands of people going days without anything to eat.

This article will explore the ongoing food crisis in Gaza.  It serves as an analytical case study, as we will examine ways to improve food access and will outline a strategic plan that includes both immediate measures and post-conflict solutions, including better food storage methods, training communities to handle such emergencies, and providing healthcare support in the conflict’s aftermath.

This article relies on unconventional theories of war, focusing on “siege starvation” as a war crime and deliberate method of warfare, rather than as an inevitable byproduct of conflict. These theories emphasize that starvation—through the intentional deprivation of essential resources such as food and water—undermines the victim’s fundamental capacity to survive and act, effectively weaponizing their suffering.

We will examine the issue at two levels: institutional and individual, to see how humanitarian institutions can help address it, and what actions individuals can take.

1. Food as a Weapon of War:

 a) Conceptual Background:

Already in the 5th century BC, Sun Tzu documented the weaponization of food in his book The Art of War. Still today, the deliberate restriction of food is used as a tool to weaken or destroy populations. Between 691 and 783 million people are experiencing food insecurity, 85% of which live in settings of armed conflict.

Starvation is a deliberate tactic of warfare. During sieges, people often go without food and water. Destroying food and water sources, as well as their production and distribution methods, can be used to deny an adversary of their nutritional worth. It is not necessary to wait until civilians are starving to determine that a party is using famine as a weapon of war.

Weaponization of food consists in the deliberate manipulation of food supplies, access, or quality, with the purpose of hurting or subduing a targeted group. This includes manufacturing shortages, manipulating prices, and directly depriving individuals of access to food. Since 1966, the right to food has been guaranteed as an integral part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which affirms the “fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.” In an era of substantial economic expansion in most of the world, including emerging economies, such a normative entrenchment of rights seemed feasible as prosperity grew.

In light of the current weakening of international rules, more frequent and extensive weaponization of food can be expected. It is often considered an effective tool of repression, as food constitutes the most basic human need, and its use as a weapon is comparatively cheap and can easily affect large numbers of people.

While international humanitarian law (IHL) does not explicitly recognize a “right to food,” many of its provisions aim to ensure that persons or groups not, or no longer, taking part in hostilities are not denied food or access to it. These provisions include rules with a preventive function, rules on humanitarian assistance to the civilian population, and rules pertaining to specific categories of persons. The following outline highlights the most relevant IHL provisions.

The use of malnutrition as a weapon of war is one of the primary problems in Gaza.  Any discussion of solutions must occur on several levels as the fight is still ongoing.  First, plans must be made immediately to supply food and stop widespread hunger.  However, since the use of food as a weapon of war is not new in the history of the Palestinian struggle, medium- and long-term plans are necessary to prepare for future crises.

b) Case Analysis: Gaza:

In the case of Gaza, the Israeli occupation controls the flow of food into the strip. It has calculated how many calories Palestinians need to stay alive, and its own data shows that only a fraction of that has been allowed in.

The Israeli blockade has turned hunger into a calculated instrument of control and the siege affects food security in the occupied Palestinian territory, as Israel’s control of import and export of food is detrimental to local food production.

In 2006, Ehud Olmert, an adviser to the Israeli PM, said the goal was to restrict Palestinians’ food intake without causing death. Documents later revealed that Israel calculated a daily minimum of 2,279 calories (1.836 kg of food) per person.

A 2008 court report released after a lengthy battle further shows how Israel calculated the minimum number of calories necessary to keep Gaza residents from malnutrition and how they used it to calculate the number of aid trucks allowed to enter the Gaza Strip, thus capping the aid allowed to enter Gaza.

Jasbir Puar describes this tight caloric restriction as a 21st Century version of settler colonial biopower where neither living nor dying is the aim, but rather a form of mass debilitation or collective maiming – in this case, in the form of malnutrition.

The Gaza Strip is currently witnessing the combined effects of settler colonial warfare: forced displacement, illegal siege and occupation, destruction of the healthcare system, and starvation.

The Famine Review Committee, an independent group of experts that scrutinizes IPC alerts, said food shipments “have been highly inadequate”, and singled out the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

“Our analysis of the food packages supplied by the GHF shows that their distribution plan would lead to mass starvation, even if it was able to function without the appalling levels of violence that have been reported,” the FRC said.

In March and April, Gaza was under total siege, with no food entering. In mid-May, Netanyahu said shipments would restart because of international pressure over a “starvation crisis”.

According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) platform, »two out of three famine thresholds have been reached in Gaza: plummeting food consumption and acute malnutrition. However, at the time of writing, it has not yet declared famine as the third criteria, deaths from malnutrition, could be demonstrated. However, there is mounting evidence that “widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease” are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths.«

UN and local health officials have attributed hundreds of deaths in the territory to either malnutrition or violence at food aid distribution sites. Locals and humanitarian officials have said the situation is the worst they’ve witnessed since the start of the conflict in October 2023.

This implies that food is being used as a weapon of war in two ways: first, by tempting starving individuals and using weapons to target them, and second, by abandoning the remaining individuals that die from starvation.

Given the evidence that the violence in Gaza is systematically making food insecurity worse, it is imperative that we not only document the issue but also develop a workable framework to protect the right to food, by addressing both short-term alleviation and long-term resilience.

2. Accountability and Food Security in Gaza:

Under the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, parties to a conflict must always distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, directing operations only against military objectives (Protocol I, Art. 48). Civilian objects include foodstuffs, agricultural areas, water installations, and other resources essential for survival (Protocol I, Art. 52(1)). In non-international armed conflicts, civilians are similarly afforded general protection, and parties are required to distinguish between civilians and those directly participating in hostilities (Protocol II, Art. 13(1)). These provisions collectively underscore the obligation to protect civilians’ access to adequate food during armed conflicts, ensuring that food as a resource is not targeted or withheld from non-combatants.

In the case of Gaza, this definition requires careful review and critical examination, as the Israeli occupation often accuses all Palestinians in Gaza of being part of “Hamas.” Consequently, military attacks are justified under this broad classification, raising serious concerns regarding the scale and criteria by which the Israeli occupation designates individuals or groups as combatants or terrorist organizations.

It is essential to question what requirements or standards are used to classify a group as “terrorist,” and why, paradoxically, military resources are allocated to carry out attacks that kill children, while children in Gaza continue to suffer from hunger and starvation.

An additional concern arises: why does the Israeli military have continuous access to food to carry out its operations and commit massacres, without any restrictions, whereas the legal texts themselves stipulate that persons who engage in violence or hostile acts may have their access to food restricted? This contradiction highlights a profound imbalance in the application of international humanitarian law and underscores the double standards in how the conduct of the Israeli entity is treated.

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Article 8 (25), intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including deliberately impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a war crime.

Additionally, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services.

Similarly, under the Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), starvation as a method of warfare is considered a war crime.

Elements:

1. The perpetrator deprived civilians of objects indispensable to their survival.
2. The perpetrator intended to starve civilians as a method of warfare.
3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict

Despite all these legal frameworks, we have not witnessed any accountability for the Israeli occupation, nor has humanitarian aid been delivered at a level sufficient to prevent famine.

The war in Gaza reveals a gap between international law and its enforcement. It also shows the profound failure of international institutions to hold parties accountable and to ensure that civilians can access the food they need to survive.

This dire situation calls for urgent action: stronger monitoring, clearer rules for distinguishing civilians from combatants, attackers from victims, and proactive international intervention to prevent starvation and humanitarian suffering. Without these steps, the existing legal framework remaining largely symbolic, leaving the most vulnerable people trapped in conflict with no protection.

3. A Strategic Framework for Safeguarding Food Security in Gaza:

In order to ensure food security in Gaza, a multifaceted strategy that addresses the issue at several levels of responsibility is needed.  International human rights organizations and humanitarian groups operate at the institutional level, and from an individual level, contributors, experts, and citizens are essential.

a) The vision: Ensuring that by the end of 2025, every person in Gaza has access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food

b) The goal: Accessibility of Food in Gaza and Post-Conflict Health Care.

c) Objectives:

Short-Term (0–6 months):

Guaranteeing Food Entry: Ensure the entry of sufficient quantities of food through the Rafah Border Crossing or any other available entry point.

The United Nations, in theory, could impose protection over food storage facilities through Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII. There are precedents for such measures, such as cross-border aid mechanisms in Syria. Since 2014, the Security Council has adopted resolutions (under Chapter VII of the UN Charter) allowing the delivery of humanitarian aid across borders directly into Syria without requiring the approval of the Syrian government. Accordingly, the same mechanism could be applied in Gaza without waiting for the approval of the occupying power.

Securing Distribution Sites: Place aid distribution centers under the protection of UN forces once more to prevent violence and ensure safe access, and a call to end the enforced disappearances of hungry Palestinians at Gaza food distribution sites.

Equitable Distribution: Deliver food to every area of Gaza without interference from the occupying power.

Medium-Term (6–24 months):

Sustainable Access: Establish continuous and uninterrupted food supplies until reconstruction is complete.

Reforming Storage and Control: Revise food storage systems and remove Israeli control over food and water distribution, ensuring they cannot be used again as weapons of war.

Long-Term (24+ months):

Post-conflict healthcare: Providing all of Gaza with comprehensive post-conflict health care.

Re-evaluating: the UN’s and other international organizations’ capacity to apply pressure during wartime, with a focus on creating more practical strategies and avoiding unproductive political discourse.

d) Internal and External Environment Analysis:

1) Internal Strengths and Opportunities:

The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. There are currently no capacities to provide self-sufficient nutritional solutions, so in the short and medium term, opportunities cannot realistically come from within.

However, in the long term, Palestinians have the ability to rebuild, create opportunities, and restore their land. This stems from their mindset, their deep awareness of their right to the land, and their struggle for liberation from colonialism. For now, however, the primary reliance must be on external actors.

2) Challenges and Risks:

Use of Food as a Weapon of War: The Israeli occupation employs food as a tool of war.

Continuous blockades and limitations on food shipments impede the timely supply of vital supplies to civilians, aggravating food insecurity.

The ongoing violence and instability in Gaza pose serious threats to humanitarian personnel, distribution systems, and monitoring mechanisms.

3) External Environment:

Both institutional and individual levels can be used to solve this problem.

In the short and medium term, it remains essential to continue exerting pressure on international institutions through the effective utilization of available resources.

This may be achieved by implementing structured advocacy campaigns, delivering well-formulated and targeted communications, and engaging influential figures or officials to leverage their positions in support of the cause.

One of the solutions that has already been implemented was the launch of a global fleet of boats as part of an international maritime initiative to deliver humanitarian aid to the starving population in Gaza.

The Global Sumud Flotilla will be the fourth attempt to break the maritime blockade so far this year. The Conscience first tried in May, but was attacked by drones after setting sail from Malta. After the Madleen, the Israeli military stopped another aid ship, the Handala, in late July, detained 21 international activists and reporters and seized its cargo, including baby formula, food and medicine, according to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

4) Challenges:

The absence of legally enforceable decisions is the main problem at the institutional level.  Despite repeated requests to the occupying power, starvation continues. 

Although, in theory, the UN can provide food, in practice the US veto consistently blocks any Gaza-related initiatives, leaving the General Assembly with only non-binding recommendations.

 Therefore, ensuring that decisions taken by international organizations are enforceable and legally binding is the primary concern. This necessitates a drawn-out process of reassessing these organizations and promoting internal debate over their effectiveness.

e) Concerned Parties: Human rights institutions (FAO, ECHO…), Individuals.

Responsibilities:

• Institutions (Human rights institutions)

Advocate for revising UN strategies for food provision in conflict zones.

Explore mechanisms to pressure the Israeli occupation to guarantee individuals’ right to food.

Work on separating armed conflict from basic human rights such as the right to food.

• Individuals

Raise global awareness about this issue to encourage more engagement.

Each person, according to their expertise, can contribute uniquely or join relevant organizations to help, and individual donors could play a crucial role in funding humanitarian activities in addition to the contributions of international organizations.

f) Alternatives strategies:

In light of the internal and external obstacles identified, the alternative strategy shifts toward employing pressure-based tactics:

Legal and rights-based pressure includes bringing attention to violations of international humanitarian law, initiating lawsuits in US courts, and using the Leahy Laws to stop financing to organizations involved in violations.

International and coalition pressure: forming a group of countries from the Global South and allies in Europe to apply political and symbolic pressure, and using UN human rights organizations to counter American opposition.

This strategy could make members of the Western block important players.  The monopoly of the official narrative can be broken by academics, journalists, lawyers, progressive lawmakers, and student movements.

Conclusion:

Finally, the situation on the ground indicates that there is currently no legally enforceable mechanism in place to compel the aggressor to abide by international law. As a result, humanitarian organizations are unable to make a significant difference and are only able to play a part in partial efforts that do not fully address the disaster.

In addition, the US’ persistent use of its veto power within the Security Council reveals the gap between international norms and enforceable action. This makes reliance on institutional mechanisms alone insufficient.

In this context, safeguarding the right to food in Gaza requires a dual strategy: first, pressing for legally binding mechanisms at the international level, including the reform of UN approaches to food delivery in conflict zones; and second, mobilizing pressure-based alternatives, from litigation in foreign courts to academic advocacy campaigns that challenge the monopoly of the dominant narrative.

At the individual level, movements, donors, and civil society actors—like the flotillas trying to break the blockade—remain essential in maintaining awareness and delivering aid right away.  These initiatives are important, but they cannot replace systemic fixes based on accountability for transgressions and adherence to international law.

Finally, any sustainable strategy needs to include long-term political solutions that end the use of food as a weapon of war, medium-term lobbying and legal innovation, and short-term humanitarian access.  Only then will it be possible to effectively protect the fundamental right to food in Gaza and beyond.