This week, during a meeting in Scotland with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged what many in the international community have been warning for months: there is “real starvation” in Gaza. His statement, though brief, reflects a growing recognition, even among staunch allies of Israel, that a humanitarian crisis is happening in Gaza.
Also, this week, two Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, issued a joint declaration accusing their own government of committing genocide in Gaza. The two reports they provided outline the systemic dismantling of food supplies, the restriction of humanitarian aid, and the ongoing conflict that has disrupted Gaza’s access to clean water, fuel for electricity, and other life-sustaining essentials.
The Facts on the Ground
While these statements underscore the severity of the situation, the debate over starvation in Gaza continues to be severely polarized. On the one hand, numerous international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF, have documented a severe and worsening food crisis. On the other hand, Israeli officials and their supporters argue that such claims are exaggerated, politically motivated, or entirely false.
The objective facts, however, are difficult to ignore. According to a March 2024 report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), famine was imminent in northern Gaza, and at least half the population was experiencing catastrophic food insecurity at that time. Similarly, the WHO last year warned of an “explosion of preventable child deaths” if access to humanitarian assistance did not improve immediately. More recently, UNICEF has confirmed the deaths of dozens of children due to severe malnutrition, noting that these deaths “could have been prevented.”
Denials and Doubt
Yet, with all the evidence presented, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has firmly denied that starvation is occurring. “There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation in Gaza,” he declared in a recent public statement aimed at rebutting allegations of a deliberate campaign.
This contradiction between observable catastrophe in Gaza and official denial by senior leaders points to a deeper issue: the conflict between objective facts and subjective narratives. It is not only about objective data or body counts on the ground; it is also a matter of how the situation is interpreted, justified, or dismissed, depending on one’s political allegiances and assumptions.
Assumptions of Moral Authority
Israel’s supporters often frame the conflict through the lens of national security, emphasizing the country’s right to defend itself against Hamas, which launched a surprise attack on October 7, 2023. From this perspective, any collateral damage, including restricted access to food and medicine, can be viewed as an unavoidable consequence of war.
Moreover, there’s an implicit belief among many in the West that a developed, democratic country like Israel would not intentionally weaponize starvation. As a key U.S. ally, Israel is presumed to adhere to international norms, even when mounting evidence may suggest the opposite. This belief creates cognitive dissonance: how can a nation that shares intelligence, technology, and diplomatic ties with Western powers be responsible for starving civilians?
Aid Blockades and Responsibility
But the facts remain. Since the October 2023 escalation, access to humanitarian corridors has been tightly controlled or outright denied. Aid trucks have been stalled, convoys attacked, and relief workers killed. As of mid-2024, over 90% of Gaza’s population relies on humanitarian assistance, yet this assistance is often delayed or not delivered at all.
Intent can be difficult to prove, but the crisis on the ground is evident. If a policy results in widespread, preventable starvation, the question of whether it is intentional or incidental becomes morally and legally significant. International law, including Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions, prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. If Israel is knowingly creating conditions where food and medicine cannot reach civilians, that could be considered a war crime, regardless of declared policy.
It is also important to note that not all criticism of Israel comes from outside. Those, as mentioned earlier, Israeli human rights groups, along with some Israeli citizens, doctors, and academics, have called for accountability. These voices remind us that criticism of state policy and military actions, or lack thereof, is not an attack on a group of people or religion representative of that state; it is a demand for justice and accountability.
Moral Clarity and Accountability
The U.S. and other Western powers find themselves in a difficult position. Acknowledging the scale of the crisis without holding Israel accountable risks complicity. But remaining silent or repeating official denials of starvation, with all the evidence, erodes moral credibility and undermines international law.
Starvation is not a matter of opinion, especially when children are dying because of deliberate choices made in the context of war. Recognizing this reality does not deny Israel’s right to defend itself; it affirms the principle that all parties in a conflict must be held to the same humanitarian standards.
Until the international community confronts the paradox between rhetoric and reality, between allyship and accountability, the people of Gaza will continue to pay the price in suffering and deaths.
Assad A. Raza is an adjunct professor and U.S. Army veteran with multiple deployments across the Middle East. Follow him on X @AssadRaza12 and on LinkedIn.
