Israel’s US-Backed Starvation Policy in Gaza
Polygraph | Newsletter n°280 | 27 Nov 2024
Situation
The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former military chief Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas military commander Mohammad Deif. The ICC Prosecutor had requested these warrants in late May.
As co-perpetrators, Netanyahu and Gallant are wanted for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare” and several crimes against humanity; as civilian superiors (responsible for their subordinates), they’re wanted for intentionally directing attacks against civilians.
The warrants themselves are classified, but the first crime listed — starvation as a method of warfare — is given a lot of real estate in the ICC’s press release. A sample:
The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals 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. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.
We’re not sure how much evidence exactly the ICC Prosecutor has. Clearly there’s enough for the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber to conclude that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” Netanyahu et al committed the crimes in question — but the evidentiary threshold is higher to have the charges confirmed after an arrest (“substantial grounds to believe”) and higher still in a trial (“beyond a reasonable doubt”).
So it’s possible the ICC Prosecutor is still collecting evidence to further strengthen the case, including evidence since his initial request for warrants on 20 May 2024. If so, he should read my new policy paper — particularly if he’s also interested in Biden and Blinken’s complicity in Netanyahu and Gallant’s crimes.
New policy paper
The paper is called Israel’s US-Backed Starvation Policy in Gaza: Assessing the Biden Administration's Failed Humanitarian Ultimatum to Israel and was commissioned and published by Security in Context (follow SIC via Youtube, Twitter, etc). The paper draws on new data to demonstrate the extent of Israel’s failure to comply with the humanitarian demands outlined in the 30-day ultimatum the Biden administration issued last month.
Those technical findings help build the paper’s main argument: Enabling Israel to impose famine in Gaza is the official, albeit unstated, policy of the Biden administration. The purpose of the 30-day ultimatum to Israel issued in October 2024 was to make that policy preference less obvious. Here are some of the other points I used to build that argument, accompanied by excerpts from the paper:
Israeli policy in Gaza is US policy. Israel’s dependence on US military support coupled with diplomatic and political backing gives the US immense leverage, should it choose to exercise it, over Israeli actions in Gaza. Israel is starving Gaza, and the Biden administration is at the very least allowing it to happen. This may not have been the US’s first policy choice, but it’s the one the Biden administration chose over preventing Israel from starving Gaza.
Yes, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid. Israel on average allowed two-thirds more aid trucks into Gaza before the White House’s letter (93) than the 30 days after it (56). The declining amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza is attributable to Israel and Israel alone. This decline is not due to a lack of demand — humanitarian needs in Gaza are higher than ever. It’s not due to a lack of supply, either…The number of aid trucks forced by Israeli authorities to idle outside Gaza at any given time ranges from several hundred to several thousand.
Even with full compliance, Biden’s ultimatum still would’ve allowed Israel to starve Gaza. First, Biden’s aid truck quota may sound like a lot, but 350 aid trucks per day is still insufficient to address the threat of famine in Gaza…Even after USAID determined that 600 aid trucks are needed in Gaza daily, Biden only required Israel to let in 350 per day…Second, there is no guarantee that even 600 daily aid trucks would be enough. While counting the number of aid trucks dispatched into Gaza is a useful metric by which to gauge Israeli obstruction of humanitarian assistance at the border…Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian assistance does not stop at the border.
^Alt text for screen readers: Gaza needs 600 aid trucks per day to avert famine. Biden asked Israel to let in 350. USAID: 600 aid trucks needed daily to address the threat of famine. This chart shows truckloads of humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza in comparison to two benchmarks. The first is the Biden administration’s 350-aid truck requirement, and the 600-aid truck requirement to avert famine. Figures refer to humanitarian cargo only. Data: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Data as of 12 Nov 2024.
Biden issued a 30-day ultimatum instead of following US law. There is no legal or moral explanation for the White House’s decision to give Israel a 30-day grace period instead of enforcing US law…US law is clear about prohibiting military assistance to countries that obstruct US humanitarian aid. This is spelled out in Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act.
The law certainly applies here. The Biden administration enacted a record $17.9 billion in military aid for Israel in fiscal year 2024. The US is also by far the top funder of humanitarian activities in Gaza, meaning that US humanitarian aid is virtually assured to be obstructed by Israel as it restricts humanitarian aid as part of its use of starvation as a weapon of war. Crucially, Section 620I excludes a requirement that all US humanitarian assistance be directly or indirectly obstructed; i.e., even partial restrictions on US humanitarian assistance are enough to trigger Section 620I and its ramifications.
If Biden wanted to prevent Israel from starving Gaza, he’d comply with US law. If the Biden administration was truly committed to improving humanitarian conditions in Gaza…it would follow US law. This is what the international humanitarian community has effectively been asking for. More than 250 humanitarian and human rights groups are calling for an arms embargo on Israel, in part because “Gaza’s remaining lifeline — an internationally-funded aid response — has been paralyzed” by Israel’s siege and attacks on Gaza. The signatories to the joint statement are urging UN member states to “stop fueling the crisis.”
In other words, because the easiest route for successful humanitarian access in Gaza is an end to Israel’s military operations there, it follows that the best policy that the Biden administration should pursue is to follow US law. Due to Israel’s reliance on US military support to prosecute its military operations, a US arms embargo unlocks the ceasefire that Israeli leadership has rejected in favor of continuing its military operations. As is written in a May USAID report, delivering “humanitarian assistance at the scale required across Gaza is not feasible in the absence of a ceasefire.”
CONCLUSION (read more here)
The 30-day ultimatum illuminates a grotesque tension at play among White House leadership. The Biden administration believes that its Israel policy should not be constrained by human rights law, but still badly wants to be seen as committed to upholding human rights. The White House’s letter to Israeli officials gestured at a commitment to human rights by expressing concern over the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza and demanding of Israel improvements in humanitarian access purportedly to ameliorate those conditions.
But the ultimatum was all for show, a public relations maneuver to create the illusion of a commitment to human rights and distance itself from the mass starvation policy it is enabling. That the demands were not enforced, that they were written in a way that would still allow Israel to starve Gaza, and the context in which the ultimatum itself was issued all reveal how deeply unserious the Biden administration was about deviating from the genocidal status quo. In this way, the administration’s PR stunt backfired — it’s now clearer than ever that the Biden administration’s policy is enabling mass starvation in Gaza. The 30-day ultimatum for Israel may not have changed US policy, but it clarified what that policy is.
*Read more: https://www.securityincontext.org/posts/israels-us-backed-starvation-policy-in-gaza
SPECIAL THANKS TO: Abe B., Alan F., Andrew R., AT., BartB., BeepBoop, Bill S., Bob N., Brett S. Byron D., Chris, Chris G., Cole H., D. Kepler, David J., David S.,* David V.,* Elizabeth R., Errol S., Foundart, Francis M., Frank R., Gary W., Graham P., Griffin R., Hunter S., Irene B., Isaac, James H., James N., Jcowens, Jennifer, Jerry S., Joe R., John, John A., John K., John M., Jonathan S., Joseph B., Kheng L., Lea S., Leila CL., Linda B., Linda H., Lindsay, Lindsay S.,* Lora L., Mapraputa, Marie R., Mark L., Matthew H.,* Megan., Michael S., Mitchell P., Nick B., Norbert H., Omar D.,* Peter M., Philip L., Rosemary K., Silversurfer, Springseep, Teddie G., Theresa A., Themadking, Tim C., Timbuk T., Tony L., Tony T., Victor S., William P.
* = founding member