By Lara Kajs
Thinking Out Loud
Humanitarian aid is intended to relieve suffering during war and crisis. Yet in modern conflicts, access to aid can itself become a strategic tool. The war in Gaza has reignited debate over whether restrictions on humanitarian assistance can amount to the weaponization of aid — raising serious legal and ethical questions under international humanitarian law.
Humanitarian aid exists to alleviate suffering and preserve human dignity during crises. In conflict zones, however, the delivery of aid is rarely insulated from politics or military strategy. Increasingly, humanitarian assistance is entangled in power struggles, raising concerns that aid itself can be manipulated as a tool of coercion.
The ongoing war in Gaza has intensified international scrutiny over whether restrictions on humanitarian supplies amount to the weaponization of aid. Critics argue that limiting or conditioning the delivery of food, water, and medical supplies can transform humanitarian assistance into an instrument of leverage in wartime.
When aid becomes politicized or strategically manipulated, it undermines the foundational principles that guide humanitarian action: neutrality, impartiality, and independence. The result is not only the erosion of humanitarian norms but also the deepening of civilian suffering.
When humanitarian aid becomes a tool of leverage in conflict, the civilians it is meant to protect are the ones who suffer most.”
What Is the Weaponization of Aid?
The weaponization of aid refers to the use of humanitarian assistance as a strategic or political instrument within a conflict. Instead of being distributed solely according to need, aid becomes a means of influencing populations, rewarding allies, punishing adversaries, or shaping political outcomes.
History offers several examples of this dynamic.
During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union used economic and humanitarian assistance to strengthen alliances and expand ideological influence across the developing world. In Syria’s civil war, humanitarian access was frequently restricted or redirected by the Assad government, with supplies reaching government-controlled areas while opposition regions faced prolonged shortages. Similar concerns have been raised in Yemen, where multiple parties to the conflict have been accused of diverting or obstructing humanitarian shipments.
The weaponization of aid typically manifests in several forms: selective distribution to favored populations, political conditionality placed on assistance, deliberate obstruction of humanitarian access, and the use of aid deliveries for propaganda purposes. In each case, the core principle of assistance based solely on humanitarian need is compromised.
Conflict and Humanitarian Need
Since the war began following the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military response, the Gaza Strip has faced a severe humanitarian crisis. Infrastructure across the territory has been extensively damaged, hospitals have struggled to function under sustained pressure, and access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, and medicine has become increasingly limited.
United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations have repeatedly warned of widespread food insecurity and the growing risk of famine. For civilians living in Gaza, humanitarian assistance has become a critical lifeline.
Israel maintains that restrictions on goods entering Gaza are necessary to prevent materials from being diverted to militant groups. At the same time, humanitarian organizations argue that the scale and scope of these restrictions have significantly constrained the delivery of life-saving assistance.
Mechanisms of Control
Israel exercises significant control over the flow of goods entering Gaza through border crossings such as Kerem Shalom and, historically, Rafah in coordination with Egypt. Aid organizations must coordinate shipments with Israeli authorities, who inspect cargo and determine whether materials can enter the territory.
Several mechanisms have drawn criticism from humanitarian groups.
Aid convoys are frequently subject to lengthy inspections, which can delay deliveries and cause perishable supplies to spoil. Certain materials categorized as “dual-use” — items that could potentially have both civilian and military applications — are often restricted, even when they are necessary for rebuilding water systems, hospitals, or other essential infrastructure.
Humanitarian organizations have also reported limitations on where aid can be distributed within Gaza and the routes that aid convoys may take. In some cases, aid infrastructure or distribution points have been damaged during military operations, further complicating relief efforts.
Israeli officials reject accusations that aid is being intentionally weaponized, arguing that inspections and restrictions are required to prevent supplies from benefiting armed groups such as Hamas.
International Law and Ethical Implications
International humanitarian law places clear obligations on parties to armed conflict regarding the protection of civilians.
Under the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need. Deliberately obstructing aid or using starvation as a method of warfare may constitute a violation of international law.
These legal frameworks are designed to ensure that humanitarian assistance remains separate from military objectives. When access to aid becomes entangled in political or military calculations, the protection of civilians can be severely compromised.
Debates surrounding Gaza illustrate the tension between security concerns and humanitarian obligations — a balance that international law seeks to regulate but that remains deeply contested in practice.,
The Human Cost
For civilians in Gaza, the consequences of restricted humanitarian access are immediate and profound.
Humanitarian agencies report widespread food shortages, rising malnutrition among children, and severe shortages of medical supplies. Hospitals struggle to operate amid damaged infrastructure and limited electricity, while displaced families face increasingly precarious living conditions.
For aid organizations operating on the ground, logistical obstacles are not simply operational challenges; they are barriers that determine whether assistance reaches people in time to save lives.
The Bottom Line
The weaponization of humanitarian aid remains one of the most contentious issues in modern conflict. While states often justify restrictions in the name of security, humanitarian law emphasizes the protection of civilians and the obligation to facilitate relief efforts.
The debate surrounding Gaza reflects a broader challenge confronting the international humanitarian system: ensuring that aid remains guided by humanitarian need rather than political or military strategy.
If humanitarian assistance becomes a bargaining tool in conflict, the people most in need inevitably bear the cost.
Aid is intended to preserve life and dignity. Maintaining that principle is essential not only for Gaza but for the integrity of humanitarian action worldwide.
Photo Credit: Gaza in my heart (Shaima, 8 years old, waits her turn in the crowd to get a meal from a charitable hospice that distributes free food in the city of Rafah, Gaza, December 2023 @ UNICEF – UNI445569-Zagouti) by Wasfi Akab. Licensed under CC BY NC ND 2.0
Published 23 May 2025
About Thinking Out Loud
Thinking Out Loud is a commentary series by Lara Kajs examining international law, humanitarian crises, and the prevention of mass atrocities. Drawing on field experience in conflict and displacement settings, the column explores the legal and policy challenges that shape contemporary conflicts
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.