Israel Returns to ‘Total’ Starvation of Gaza

Israel’s decision to cut off all humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip until further notice is deeply concerning. This dangerous escalation exacerbates the ongoing humanitarian crisis and weaponises starvation as a tool of genocide. The decision coincides with increasingly inflammatory statements by Israeli officials, underscoring a deliberate intent to continue Israel’s crime of genocide by depriving Palestinians of their most basic needs and imposing conditions that threaten their survival.

The Israeli government announced on Sunday a total blockade on humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, shutting all border crossings. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also publicly declared plans for “further consequences,” disregarding the dire humanitarian crisis affecting over two million people.

Humanitarian aid is a fundamental right of civilians under international humanitarian law, with no exceptions, and there is no legal justification for Israel to deny Palestinians access to essential aid. Israel is not only using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip for political and military gain, but is also deliberately enforcing a policy of systematic starvation, creating life-threatening conditions designed to make survival in the Gaza Strip impossible.

Israel’s repeated statements announcing its full coordination with the United States administration, which has explicitly stated its intention to displace the Strip’s entire population, confirm that the crimes of starvation and blocking of humanitarian aid are not isolated incidents or negotiating tools. Instead, they are part of a deliberate plan aligned with the US strategy to forcefully displace and depopulate the Gaza Strip.

Euro-Med Monitor warns that statements by Israeli ministers and Knesset members reveal a premeditated intent to exterminate the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip. International silence has allowed Israel and the US to move beyond threats and implement the total cut-off of humanitarian aid, advancing the 16-month genocide through blockade and starvation, with apparent impunity.

Most of the statements made by senior Israeli officials, including one on opening “the gates of hell” on the enclave and blocking all humanitarian aid to its residents, coupled with Israel’s actions on the ground, amount to direct and public incitement to genocide. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that halting the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza is an “important step in the right direction,” further stating that Israel must “open those gates as quickly and lethally as possible on the cruel enemy, until absolute victory”.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar dismissed warnings from the United Nations and international organisations regarding the risk of renewed famine in the Gaza Strip amid the tightened blockade and halting of humanitarian aid. Sa’ar said he considered these warnings to be “just a lie” and affirmed that the Israeli government has no commitment to delivering humanitarian aid.

Additionally, Israeli Knesset member and former Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir has declared that now is the best time to “open the gates of hell” and cut off electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip, urging continued efforts to implement plans for the forcible displacement of its residents. Israeli Knesset member Almog Cohen urged Israeli forces to kill Palestinians in Gaza “with no mercy” during the holy month of Ramadan, saying it “is the best time to kill them because they are weak and tired”.

The intention to commit genocide has been publicly expressed by the Israeli government and members of the mainstream Israeli media since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza on 7 October 2023, and even before that. Israeli Minister of Religious Services, Matan Kahana, previously voiced his wish to be able to “press a button” to expel all Palestinians. Following 7 October, genocidal rhetoric surged and making statements containing such rhetoric became a daily routine for senior Israeli officials, including the infamous statement by former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant: “We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”

The inflammatory statements by Israeli officials could pave the way for an escalation of the genocide in the Gaza Strip, including in the conditions Israel has created to cause the physical destruction of the Palestinian population in whole or in part. The deliberate worsening of these conditions is being implemented through the ongoing blockade and denial of humanitarian aid, following over 15 months of relentless aggression targeting civilian facilities, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and all aspects of daily life.

Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid constitutes a war of starvation against the residents of the Gaza Strip, as they are entirely dependent on this aid for sustenance. Notably, the United Nations confirmed three days ago that there are many difficulties in delivering aid to residents of the Strip, and that the humanitarian conditions there have reached catastrophic levels.

Not only did Israel inflict widespread killing and massive destruction on the Gaza Strip for over 15 months, but it continues to implement policies that will effectively lead to the death of the Palestinian population without swift international intervention. This includes the ongoing Israeli policy of gradual killing of Palestinians through a comprehensive illegal blockade that obstructs the flow of humanitarian aid and essential materials, prevents the repair of vital infrastructure, and halts the provision of basic services necessary for the population’s survival.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises that this Israeli policy can only be interpreted as a deliberate act of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which prohibits imposing living conditions on a group with the intent to destroy it, in whole or in part. Despite the ceasefire, Israel has continued to create conditions likely to result in the physical destruction of Palestinians in the long term, given the comprehensive nature of its actions, which affect all aspects of Palestinians’ lives, particularly due to the prolonged duration for which they have been subjected to such conditions.

All relevant states and entities must fulfil their legal responsibilities and take immediate action to halt the genocide in the Gaza Strip, compel Israel and the United States to adherence to international law, and implement effective measures to protect Palestinians from US-Israeli plans of slow killing and forced displacement. This includes activating an urgent response to meet the immediate needs of the population, resuming the unrestricted entry of all humanitarian aid, removing any blockades or restrictions that hinder ongoing relief efforts, and ensuring the provision of essential services such as healthcare, water, education, and temporary, adequate housing.

Euro-Med Monitor urges the international community to fulfill its legal and humanitarian responsibilities by ensuring the implementation of the International Court of Justice’s ruling on 28 March 2024. This includes the issuance of precautionary measures requiring Israel to take necessary and effective actions, in cooperation with the United Nations, to guarantee the unobstructed and timely entry of aid into the Gaza Strip, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

EuroMed Human Rights Monitor

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026