Privatised Food Delivery in Gaza and Violations of International Humanitarian Law

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza constitutes a stress test for the core protections under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). There is mounting evidence that its rules are being disregarded. Central to this is the sustained blockade and the deliberate restriction of food, medical supplies, fuel and humanitarian access to a population which, according to one UN official, has effectively turned Gaza into a 'penal colony'. Recent practices - including/from the total blockade and destruction of food infrastructure to the introduction of a privatised aid distribution scheme by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) - are in breach of IHL rules and constitute war crimes. The outsourcing of aid delivery to a militarised and for-profit organization raises serious concerns about the undermining of legal safeguards under IHL.

Starvation as warfare

Israel is bound by overlapping obligations under IHL, including customary norms and treaty law, which prohibit the use of starvation as a method of warfare and require the protection of civilians' access to food, water, and humanitarian assistance. These legal duties are especially stringent in situations of occupation or siege, where the civilian population is rendered especially vulnerable to deprivation.

In armed conflict, IHL mandates the protection of civilians and the provision of relief. While IHL does not refer to the 'right to food' as such, many of its provisions ensure that civilians are not denied food or access to it. Three key rules of customary IHL rules are relevant here: Rule 53 prohibits using starvation as a method of warfare, Rule 54 protects objects indispensable to survival (food, water, farms, etc.), and Rule 55 requires allowing humanitarian aid to reach civilians in need. While these rules are not codified in treaty form, they represent the ICRC's (as the officially mandated guardian of IHL) assessment of Customary International Law, which bind all parties to both international and non-international armed conflicts, regardless of treaty ratification. They apply in both international and non-international armed conflicts and are binding on all parties, including Israel. Isreal is bound by the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and by customary international humanitarian law.

Rule 53 forbids using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare - this means belligerents must not deliberately deprive the population of food. Rule 53 specifies that while siege warfare is not prohibited per se, it is unlawful if its purpose is to starve the civilian population. When blockades are in place, civilians must be allowed to leave the besieged area, and humanitarian relief must be permitted free passage. The IHL definition is broad, making indirect starvation (intentionally impeding civilians' access to food sources and supplies) a war crime. Using starvation as a method of warfare, prohibited under Rule 53 requires deliberateness. Withholding food and water during sieges, destroying foodstuffs and supplies, and impeding production and distribution of food qualify as deliberate. Rule 54 of IHL protects essential objects for civilian survival, including farmland, water infrastructure, and food facilities. Unlike Rule 53, Rule 54 does not include an intent or purpose requirement. Rule 55 requires parties to a conflict to facilitate rapid and unimpeded access to humanitarian aid.

Moreover, as a state party to the Geneva Conventions, including the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), Israel is obligated to ensure the provision of essential supplies to civilian populations under its control or occupation. Article 23 of GC IV mandates the free passage of humanitarian consignments when civilians are inadequately supplied and Article 55 obliges the occupying power to ensure the provision of food and medical supplies to the population and to bring in the necessary items if local sources are insufficient. If the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, Article 59 requires Israel, as an occupying power to agree to, and facilitate, humanitarian relief schemes by all available means.

Although Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the State of Palestine has acceded to the Statute and in 2021 the ICC confirmed its jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also referred to as the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Under the Rome Statute, intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, including by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival or wilfully impeding relief supplies is explicitly recognised as a war crime (Art. 8 (2)(b)(xxv). The Rome statute also criminalises several acts, including wilful killing (Art. 8(2)(b)(i), wilfully killing causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (Art. 8(2)(b)(iii), and using the presence of civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations (e.g. as human shields) (Art. 8(2)(b)(xxiii)). These provisions are directly relevant to the situation in Gaza where there is evidence of deliberate deprivation of food, water and medicine and the militarisation of targeting of aid access points.

In December 2019, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor formally opened an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the OPT and in November 2024 issued arrest warrants for both Hamas leaders and Israeli officials. These include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of using starvation as a method of warfare and the wilful killing of civilians. In February 2025, the ICC Prosecutor's Office affirmed that the Palestine investigation continues with urgency and that the arrest warrants remain in effect.

The intentional and systematic nature of these actions may further support their classification as crimes against humanity under the Rome statute, including extermination (Art 7(1)(b)), Persecution (Art. 7(1)(h))) and other inhumane acts causing great suffering or serious injury (Art. 7(1)(k)). It is worth mentioning that the Rome statute is grounded in, and expands upon, the grave breaches regime of the Geneva Conventions as outlined in Article 147 of the GC IV. In addition to giving rise to criminal responsibility, they also trigger universal jurisdiction which means that any State Party to the Geneva Conventions is legally obliged to search for, prosecute, or extradite individuals suspected of committing such acts, regardless of the perpetrator's nationality or the location of the crime

The militarisation and commodification of humanitarian aid: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)

On 23 July 2025, over 100 NGOs have warned of 'mass starvation' in Gaza accusing the Israeli government for it. Leading international law scholars describe Gaza siege as a 'text-book case of genocide'. After October 2023, Israel imposed a total blockade on food, fuel, and supplies to Gaza for months. The UN and international organisations have stated that Israel is 'trying to use food as a weapon' and that using collective punishment and starvation as a weapon of war has made Gaza 'practically uninhabitable'. According to assessments by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification  (IPC), nearly a quarter of Gaza's population are facing 'catastrophic hunger' (IPC, Phase 5) signalling widespread starvation and the entire population experiencing acute food insecurity. BIICL had previously called for respect of international law rules prohibiting the use of starvation as a weapon of war and for the prosecution of alleged perpetrators of the war crime of starvation.

The GHF is a secretive start-up private organisation committed to delivering food aid in Gaza 'safely and directly'. The GHF was launched in late May 2025, shortly after Israel imposed a total blockade on all aid supplies into the Gaza strip for nearly three months. The GHF is headquartered in Delaware, US, with a now-defunct branch in Switzerland which was dissolved on administrative grounds - including failure to meet transparency standards and compliance with Swiss regulations. In addition to food distribution, GHF is also working on a multibillion dollar project to establish 'transit camps' inside and outside Gaza, which it brands as 'humanitarian transit areas'. The UN and major international aid organisations have condemned the scheme for weaponising humanitarian relief. The organisation is currently led by interim executive director John Acree, replacing Jake Wood after he resigned on grounds of GHF being unable to uphold IHL principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. More than 170 NGOs are accusing the GHF to operate in violations of IHL and are calling for it to be shut down.

Promoted and backed by Israel and the US, GHF uses private security and logistic companies to deliver aid into Gaza. Reportedly, these include UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions, the latter founded by former CIA paramilitary officer Philip F. Reilly who also served with Constellis - the parent company of the private military firm Blackwater. To date, GHF has not disclosed its donor lists or published financial reports. It has declined to identify which government provided it with USD100 million in start-up money although funding for the effort reportedly comes from the Israeli government itself. The Trump administration announced in July, after already hundreds of reported deaths that it would donate USD 30million to the organisation. This was issued without standard USAID audits or anti-terror vetting.

Replacing UN's 400 non-militarised aid points, GHF operates four fortified distribution hubs with biometric checkpoints that are positioned across active conflict zones for some two million Palestinians in southern Gaza, far from many of the displaced. The hubs, described as 'death traps' are secured by armed guards reportedly using bullets, stun grenades and pepper spray - the Israeli government does not allow international media in Gaza thus making impossible to very all facts. The GHF food distribution sites are located in the evacuation zones, meaning that civilians seeking foods are forced to enter areas they had been ordered to leave. Created to bypass expert UN and independent humanitarian channels, GHF effectively forces civilians to walk long distances to access aid, often through dangerous areas, excluding vulnerable populations from effective relief. Between the end of May and the end of July, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, allegedly by Israeli security forces, while they were trying to access GHF food distribution sites - many more have been injured. The deaths are also happening at sites controlled by GHF's armed security guards - GHF says it bears no responsibility for deaths outside its perimeters.

Corporate complicity implies that corporations may be 'aiding' or 'abetting' violations perpetrated by States. International criminal law suggests that direct complicity requires intentional participation, but not necessarily an intention to do harm, only knowledge of foreseeable harmful effects. Arguably, harmful effects on the starving Palestinian population are foreseeable as result of the GHF's design and operations A corporation or individual businessperson who knowingly assists a State in violating customary international law may be complicit in such a violation. It is not required that the corporate accomplice desires that the principal offence is committed. As such, a corporation or corporate leader may be complicit in the commission of international crimes where it decides to participate through assistance in the commission of the acts by the State of Israel and that assistance contributes to the commission of those crimes. Direct support, either through participation in or the provision of essential means for, the commission of the crime can translate into international criminal responsibility for the individual actors concerned. The design and operations of the GHF may risk complicity in international crimes committed by the Israeli forces.

Collapsed humanitarian neutrality in Gaza

Providing humanitarian aid to Gaza using a private organisation supported by US security and logistics firms raises at least two concerns. First, it challenges an established legal framework regarding who may carry out humanitarian relief operations. Second, it represents a fundamental shift in the character of humanitarian assistance: from a binding legal obligation under IHL, to a discretionary and privatised service model,

Under IHL, humanitarian action must strictly adhere to principles of neutrality impartiality and independence as codified in Article 60, of GC IV, which requires that relief be used exclusively for humanitarian purposes and prohibits its use for political, military or commercial ends. Furthermore, Common Article 3, Additional Protocol I, Article 70, which reflects customary international law assume that humanitarian relief is to be provided by impartial humanitarian actors that are accepted by all parties to the conflict. The GHF however, is a domestically incorporated private entity, with no status in international law and with no mandate under any treaty. Unlike traditional humanitarian actors like the International Committee of the Red Cross, the GHF operates outside established humanitarian coordination mechanisms and functions at the intersection of militarised logistics and private finance, rather than humanitarian principles. The deployment of private security and logistics firms, including those with direct links to military and intelligence services introduces a 'for-profit, security first logic' into a space that IHL requires to remain demilitarised and independent.

In legal terms, the GHF model undermines the protective purpose of IHL which is not only designed to enable the provision of aid, but to ensure that such aid remains non-political, needs-based and free from coercion or profit motive. It also raises legal consequences of both Israel and the US under the Articles on State Responsibility, which holds states accountable when they aid or assist another state or actor in committing an internationally wrongful act (Article 16) and exercise direction or control over non-state actors that commit IHL violations (Art 8).

Moreover, reports suggest that private equity interests are financially embedded in GHF's operations, raising serious questions about commercial motivations behind aid delivery. These risks transforming humanitarian relief into a selective, politicised service rather than a universal legal obligation based on humanitarian principles. As noted by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine 'the genocide carried out by Israel continues'...because it is lucrative for many.'

Conclusion

The ongoing situation in Gaza maybe a turning point for the IHL regime. Failure to respect and enforce its rules may have far ranging consequences for the future of armed conflict. The sustained blockade, deliberate denial of food, fuel and humanitarian relief shows an alarming lack of respect for IHL. It also reveals a deeper structural crisis: the collapse of impartial humanitarian aid in favour of a privatised, militarised model exemplified by the GHF which erodes the legal and moral distinction between humanitarian assistance and military strategy. Denying commercial food supplies, destroying agricultural infrastructure, and replacing impartial aid networks with politicised private initiatives violate humanitarian obligations as well as actively dismantling the protective function of IHL. Starvation as a weapon, obstruction of aid, and targeting civilians at food sites are not simply policy choices; they are prosecutable war crimes. Moreover, GHF's operations and the use of private US contractors and security forces with close ties to Israeli military forces may amount to complicity in war crimes and violations of IHL. At present, legal accountability is unfolding on multiple fronts: from the ongoing investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court to the genocide proceedings at the International Court of Justice underscores a growing consensus that core international norms are being violated on a systemic scale.

But beyond accountability, Gaza exposes the fragility of international legal enforcement in modern conflicts. It raises a fundamental question of whether international norms, however well-established, can be hollowed out by political shielding, selective application and outsourcing of responsibility. In this context, the stake is not only the respect and enforcement of humanitarian obligations, but the credibility and legitimacy of international law itself. When fundamental norms prohibiting starvation, collective punishment and the targeting of civilians are systematically violated with limited consequences, it undermines the claim that international law serves as a universal constraint of power. Whether IHL continues to function as a meaningful legal framework depends not only on doctrinal coherence but on the political will and institutional integrity to enforce it, consistently, impartially and without exception.

Authors:

Dr Irene Pietropaoli, Senior Fellow in Business and Human Rights, BIICL
Dr Sara Razai, Research Leader & International Projects Lead, BIICL