Why legal experts say that starvation in Gaza is a war crime

Israel has been accused of the crime of starving civilians since the beginning of its war on Gaza in October 2023.

In late July, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world’s leading hunger monitoring system, said that the “worst-case scenario of famine” is unfolding in Gaza due to the Israel-imposed famine and siege.

At the time of publication, more than 160 Palestinian children and adults in Gaza have died from starvation, according to the territory’s health ministry.

Even before the current war, which has killed at least 60,000 Palestinians and displaced almost all the 2.2m population, Israel blockaded Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters and two of its three land crossings since 2007. Approximately 80 percent of the population depended on aid from the UN and international NGOs.

Israel decided who and what could enter and exit, and sought to control the amount of calories per person. As early as 2006, an adviser to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert summed up the policy: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

The situation has worsened during the war, with restrictions and bans on the essentials to sustain life.

The policy has drawn international outrage, even amongst Israel’s allies. On 21 November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the first for any leader of a Western ally. It was also the first time anyone had been charged for the crime of starvation.

Below, Middle East Eye explains the use of starvation in Gaza, the legal case against Israel, what the international courts are doing, and the reaction from Israel.

How has Israel weaponised aid during its war on Gaza?

Since 7 October 2023, Israel has repeatedly stopped supplies and destroyed services essential for human life, including food, water, medicine, fuel, electricity and basic communications.

The few aid convoys allowed in are often delayed and obstructed. Hundreds of Palestinians seeking aid have been killed while seeking food, either by Israeli troops or military contractors working for the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Aid workers, NGO staff and clinicians have been targeted. Truces and ceasefires are often short-lived.

How is hunger in Gaza measured?

UN agencies and governments use the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). It assesses the risk through five phases of acute food insecurity.

The worst is Phase 5, or famine: the detection of a catastrophic level of hunger among households. That’s when:

– 20 percent of households in an area suffer an extreme lack of food, leading to critical levels of acute malnutrition and death

– 30 percent of children under five suffer acute malnutrition

– there are at least two deaths per 10,000 people per day from starvation.

In its latest Gaza assessment on 29 July, the IPC said at least the first two of the three thresholds had been met, contributing to an increased risk of deaths among children and adults. The IPC said that the factors leading to this included:

– the continued Israeli blockade

– the lack of access for aid groups and NGOs

– the large-scale displacement

– the severe shortage of food, water, shelter and medicine

– the near total collapse of the healthcare and sanitation systems

How is famine different from the crime of starvation?

“Starvation” and “famine” may sound interchangeable, but are legally and technically different.

Famine is the worst-case result of starvation, hence the legal significance of prohibiting starvation as a policy from the start.

Once famine arrives then it is too late: for example, a famine in Somalia was acknowledged in 2011, but only after 250,000 people had died, half of whom were under five.

“Starvation”, unlike famine, is recognised as a war crime and so the word carries legal weight.

What defines starvation in law?

Starvation has two aspects: the “process” of being starved, and the “outcome”.

In this context, “process” is the phase when the deprivation of sustenance becomes policy, and before famine and death occur. Meanwhile, “outcome” is defined as malnutrition and other impacts, including death.

Tom Dannenbaum, international law professor at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, and one of the leading authorities on the crime of starvation, says that the process can start long before the IPC metrics have been met.

“It’s about the process of denying objects indispensable to survival for the purpose of denying their sustenance value,” he said in an interview with MEE’s Expert Witness Podcast.

“That process can begin at a point at which there isn’t yet a high level of acute malnutrition or elevated mortality. And yet the process of deprivation has begun.”

Evidence of the criminality and its intent can come in actions and statements. During its war on Gaza, Israel has justified the siege as a means of pressuring Hamas to release captives held since 7 October.

Perhaps the most blatant was that of then-defence minister Yoav Gallant, who said on 9 October 2023: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

Dannenbaum said that it could only be understood as a “deliberate effort to deny objects indispensable to survival”.

And on 13 January 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “We provide minimal humanitarian aid… If we want to achieve our war goals, we give the minimal aid.”

What about the ‘outcome’ from starvation

In a legal context, ‘outcome’ is defined as malnutrition and other impacts, including death.

Dannenbaum says that people can suffer levels of fatal and near-fatal acute malnutrition without triggering a famine declaration or any of its other elements.

That, he said, would still imply starvation was being used as a method of warfare if the impact of that policy was known.

Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation and a foremost expert on famine, said Israel’s starvation tactics differ from historical precedents due to the control it exerts on aid and its intent to prevent humanitarian relief.

“If Israel wanted every child in Gaza to have breakfast tomorrow, the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could say so, and it would happen,” he said.

“That is not the case in other terrible famines, such as in Sudan today. The precision, the minute control that Israel has over this is something without precedent in modern times.”

What does international law say about weaponising starvation?

Historically, starvation has always been part of siege warfare but has only been criminalised during the past two decades.

1863: The Lieber Code, issued during the American Civil War to Union forces, is one of the earliest codifications of war crimes. But it still states that “it is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy”.

1919: Starvation first appears as a war crime among a list of 32 offences drafted under the Allies after World War One in the Report of the Commission on Responsibility. But while the “deliberate starvation of civilians” is seen as a violation, it has no legal force.

1949: Regulation begins with the Fourth Geneva Convention. Occupying powers must ensure the unimpeded supply of food and medical supplies to the population under occupation.   

1977: The obligation is codified in the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Starvation is classified as a weapon during conflicts between states; and between a state and non-state group. But it’s yet to be called a “grave breach”, which is used to define war crimes.

1998: Starvation finally becomes a prosecutable crime, under the Rome Statute of the ICC – but only for war between states.

2021: Starvation, as a war crime committed during internal conflicts, is added as an amendment to the statute – but so far, only 21 of the ICC’s 125 member states have ratified it.

What’s the actual essence of the crime of starvation?

Under Article 8 (2) (b) (xxv) of the Rome Statute, the war crime of starvation takes place if 

– The perpetrator deprives civilians of objects indispensable to their survival

– It is done with the intent to starve civilians as a method of warfare

That phrase “objects indispensable to survival” matters: it applies not only to food and water (“foodstuffs”) but also “agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works”.

All of these have been severely affected during the war.

It doesn’t stop there: the crime of starvation can also occur simultaneously with other related crimes.

In the context of Gaza, the ICC In November 2024, the ICC also charged Israeli leaders with the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts in connection with the deprivation of food, water and medicine. 

It also overlaps with genocide, which has been central to South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ. Four of the genocidal acts listed in the covention have been cited by South Africa as evidence of genocide linked to the siege and policy of starvation.

A UN panel of experts in March 2025 concluded that Israel was breaching the Genocide Convention by its imposition of siege and prevention of humanitarian assistance at-scale.

Based in the Genocide Convention provisions, De Waal says that Israel is committing “genocidal starvation”.

“The prevention aspect cannot wait until we have counted the graves of all those children who have died of starvation.”

And there is also the aspect of social trauma.

“It is that shame. It is that degradation. It is that feeling of people being reduced to the state of animals, being forced to violate profound social taboos – scavenging for food in piles of garbage. This is what genocide looks like at the moment.”

Is Israel committing the crime of weaponising starvation?

The evidence is overwhelming and, in the words of Dannenbaum, “very strong”.

“You don’t have to show that the acts in question caused a specific outcome,” he says. “You have to show that the deprivation occurred with the requisite intent.”

That intent might include denying sustenance to civilians; or even knowing that civilians will starve as a result.

Dannenbaum says there is no ambiguity, including the destruction of agriculture, water systems and power supplies among others. The only remaining question would be – was this done with intent?

Aside from the statements by Gallant and other Israeli officials, other observers highlight the total siege imposed on Gaza from 2 March 2025 onwards, unambiguously justified by Israel to deny Palestinians food, water and medicine.

Prosecutors may also prove that Israeli officials possessed “oblique intent” – the knowledge that starvation was a certainty.

Evidence may include how it ignored IPC famine warnings in December 2023, March 2024 and May 2025 and continued with its policy.

What have Israeli officials said about starvation?

Israel says it has restricted food and supplies to force the release of the remaining hostages, and that it has looted and diverted essentials intended for civilians.

But UN agencies and other relief groups have repeatedly debunked this claim, saying Israel has not provided evidence. Martin Griffiths, the former UN humanitarian chief, told MEE that such a claim “was never tested by evidence or an accountable process.” Israeli military officials have also said there is no proof, as has an internal US government assessment. 

Dannenbaum says that under international law, a civilian population cannot be denied humanitarian aid to prevent it being diverted to combatants.

The only justification would be if the aid is “systematically and almost entirely being diverted to combatants and not reaching civilians at all.”

But he said: “We saw during the ceasefire that there was significant delivery to civilians.”

Has Israel tried to distribute aid?

Yes – and with disastrous results.

In May 2025, Israel replaced the UN’s humanitarian operations in Gaza with US-backed militarised aid distribution run by the GHF, a US-based organisation.

It operates four distribution centres in southern Gaza, replacing roughly 400 UN‑run aid points across the enclave. Sites are secured by US private security contractors and monitored by the Israeli military. 

Philippe Lazzarini, Unrwa’s commissioner-general, told MEE shortly after GHF’s launch that its introduction appeared part of the Israeli army’s plan to force the population from northern to southern Gaza, forcing people to regroup around the new distribution cluster.

“So it becomes an instrument of a forced displacement of the population.” 

From the start of GHF starting operations on 26 May until the end of July, at least 1,373 Palestinians had been killed while seeking aid from its distribution sites, according to the UN, with the numbers rising daily.

That is why GHF’s system has been described by aid workers as a “death trap”, while UN agencies have refused to cooperate with it. 

Many civilians cannot reach distribution points due to security risks or their inability to travel, especially from northern Gaza. Those who reach the hubs risk targeted attacks or their supplies being stolen on their way home by people who are also starving.

Dannenbaum said that even if it was unclear whether the GHF was being used to deny sustenance to Palestinians, there was still a clear context that civilians would starve, given that the IPC has said there is a high risk of famine.

“This is occurring in a context in which the deprivation has the virtual certainty of causing starvation in the civilian population.”

What has the ICC said about starvation in Gaza?

Starvation is the centerpiece in the case against Israeli leaders before the ICC.

In its arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant on 21 November 2024, the ICC said it had reasonable grounds to believe that the pair:

“Intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024”.

The pre-trial chamber, which issues warrants among other duties, mentioned Netanyahu and Gallant’s role in curtailing humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza and not supporting relief operations.

The judges said that Israel’s restrictions on aid, as well as severe reductions on energy supplies, had a “severe impact” on water supplies and hospitals in Gaza.

When Israel finally allowed humanitarian aid to enter Gaza after the total blockade of October 2023, they said it was insufficient to meet Israel’s international legal obligations.

The ICC also levelled other charges in connection with Israel’s deprivation of essential supplies, including murder and persecution.

The charge of “inhumane acts” related to the deliberate reduction or prevention of medical supplies, including that “doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering.”

What did the ICJ say?

The ICJ intervenes in disputes between states, not least if one country alleges that another has committed genocide. It is examining two cases linked to the starvation of civilians.

In December 2023, South Africa accused Israel, before the ICJ,of breaching the Genocide Convention of 1948 through its policy of siege and starvation. 

South Africa said Israel had done this, among other acts, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” It also cited IPC warnings that 93 percent of Gaza’s population faced crisis levels of hunger.

The ICJ may take years to reach a judgment in South Africa’s case against Israel. In the interim, it has issued three rulings, known as “provisional measures orders”. These request that Israel refrain from and prevent acts of genocide, including those that relate to starvation. They are:

Prevent genocidal acts: On 26 January 2024, said that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide was plausibly at risk. Israel was also told to allow humanitarian aid without obstruction. However, the Court did not order a ceasefire

Ensure unhindered delivery of aid and basic services: In the second order, on 28 March 2024, the ICJ noted that famine was actively unfolding in Gaza

Immediately halt its military operations in Rafah: The third order, on 24 May 2024, was the most pointed, as it stated the risk of genocide in Rafah had significantly intensified. It also required Israel to keep the Rafah crossing open for humanitarian assistance.

The orders by the UN’s principal judicial organ are legally binding on Israel. But it has rejected the allegations and largely failed to comply.

What else has the ICJ said about Israel?

The UN itself can also ask the ICJ for its views on an issue – this is known as an advisory opinion.

At the moment, as part of this, the court is examining Israel’s humanitarian obligations in relation to the UN and other international organisations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, defined as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

As part of this, the ICJ held oral hearings from more than 40 member states, in late April and early May. There was a broad consensus that Israel, as the occupying power, was legally obliged to allow unrestricted humanitarian support in the affected territories

Representatives also argued that the siege and restrictions on aid are evidence that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of warfare. 

During the hearings, most delegations, including the UN, UK, Palestinian representatives and others, said that Israeli obstruction of essential supplies violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said: “I accuse Unrwa, I accuse the UN, I accuse the secretary-general and I accuse all those that weaponised international law and its institutions in order to deprive the most attacked country in the world, Israel, of its most basic right to defend itself.”