Israel consistently denies using starvation in Gaza as a weapon of war. These denials emerged as early as January 2024, when Israel submitted documents to the International Court of Justice in response to the genocide case filed by South Africa in The Hague. Israeli legal representatives asserted that 'Israel has repeatedly publicly stated that there is no limit to the amount of food, water, shelter, or medical supplies that can be delivered to Gaza.'
However, these statements were disputed by human rights organizations from the outset. Amnesty International reported that between October 2023 and early July 2024, Israeli authorities never allowed the provision of 'adequate aid and other essential necessities.'
After Israel imposed a full blockade from March to mid-May 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) noted the emergence of 'one of the worst hunger crises in the world,' reporting the death of 57 children from malnutrition, and observed that 'this number is likely an underestimate.'
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024, the charges included 'war crimes in the form of starvation as a method of warfare and intentional attack on civilians.'
Israel naturally has the right to challenge these accusations, and its supporters have done so regularly. Last week, they launched a new campaign following the publication of a UNICEF survey on malnutrition among children under five in Gaza.
The American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, was the first to react to this document, posting on X (formerly Twitter): 'This is awkward for Israel haters. When a UN organization (not a friend of Israel)... refutes lies about Israel 'starving children,' it's worth reading. Is Israel committing genocide? They messed it up again!'
Former spokesperson for the Israeli government, Eilon Levy, added on X that 'starvation in Gaza has always been a fiction,' while UN Watch, which monitors the United Nations from a pro-Israel perspective, wrote: 'Starvation in Gaza? Not according to UNICEF. The new survey shows one of the lowest rates of acute malnutrition among children in the world in Gaza.'
Meanwhile, Andrew Fox, a researcher from the Henry Jackson Society, wrote on X that the notion of starvation in Gaza during the Israeli attack has been 'conclusively refuted.'
Medical Aid for Palestinians notes that anyone with even a shred of humanity should welcome any news that Gaza's children are eating better. This UNICEF study does indeed show that the ceasefire, which proved to be a fiction in many respects, allowed more food into the enclave. If Israeli authorities deserve praise, we would be happy to say so.
Nevertheless, the study did not provide evidence to justify Huckabee's and others' claims that starvation in Gaza never occurred. We contacted UNICEF for clarification on this point, and they responded: 'The recent nutrition survey measures conditions in mid-2026, more than nine months after IPC [Integrated Food Security Phase Classification] confirmed famine in August 2025, and after the ceasefire and a significant increase in humanitarian aid. It cannot tell us what the conditions were in August 2025, and it was not originally intended to do so.'
'Both conclusions are correct: famine was confirmed then, and acute malnutrition among children has decreased since then. This improvement is a result of the aid provided in the interim, not proof that it was unnecessary.'
The UK-based charity Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) also highlighted this point, stating: 'Claims that starvation has never occurred in Gaza are false, misleading, and dangerous.'
The group also noted that today's child nutrition survey cannot retroactively refute the famine finding made last year. MAP stated: 'Both conclusions can be true simultaneously: famine was confirmed in Gaza by IPC in August 2025, and the UNICEF-coordinated survey shows that malnutrition among surveyed children has since decreased.'
It added: 'Interpreting the second conclusion as a refutation of the first is an abuse and distortion of data and survey results.'
Indeed, one of the findings in the latest study—ignored by Huckabee and others—horrifically aligns with the claims of starvation. UNICEF found that about one in eight children under five suffers from growth stunting, noting: 'This indicates long-term nutritional stress and repeated deprivation beyond immediate depletion.'
The WHO defines growth stunting as 'a failure to grow and develop that children experience due to poor nutrition, recurrent infections, and inadequate psychosocial stimulation.' Growth stunting is largely irreversible and has serious long-term consequences. In fact, it is an inevitable result of the malnutrition and famine recorded by humanitarian organizations after the start of the Israeli military offensive on Gaza.
Martin Shaw, Professor of International Law and Policy at the University of Sussex and expert on genocide, reported that the consequences of previous periods of Israeli starvation policies between 2023 and 2025 are manifesting in children's growth stunting. He stated: 'The consequences of three years of Israeli military violence—injuries, amputations, untreated illnesses, loss of loved ones, immense psychological stress, destruction of health and education systems, etc.—all reflect in the condition of the child population.'
Furthermore, the study's finding that children under five in areas outside the Israeli yellow line have low levels of acute malnutrition is based on the registered weight of these children. Mike Spagat, Professor of Economics at Royal Holloway, noted: 'Children's weight can drop sharply in a few weeks and can recover in a few weeks with proper treatment—especially when administered by specialists, as here.'
He continued: 'Thus, measuring depletion is a snapshot of conditions at a specific time, and the timing matters. This survey was conducted in June 2026: eight months after the ceasefire, after two full quarters of large-scale feeding.' Spagat concludes that the low malnutrition rate represents 'the measured effect of professional intervention, and Israel supporters use this as proof that intervention was never needed.'
The new UNICEF study is unrelated to the allegation contained in the ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu that he used starvation as a weapon of war. No one, whether friends or critics of Israel, should use this report for political purposes or make political capital out of it. We all undoubtedly have a duty to do everything possible to protect the children of Gaza, who have suffered greatly and endured horrors. They should urgently be allowed to return to the normal life that everyone deserves.
On the 75th anniversary of the Refugee Convention, adopted in 1951 at the UN conference in Geneva, Britain, as one of the participating countries, faces questions about its responsibility for creating one of the world's longest refugee crises.
This anniversary highlights an uncomfortable irony: the same convention ultimately excluded Palestinian refugees—a population whose displacement was largely driven by British policy—from its standard protection through a separate legal regime.
The article's author, who dedicated much of their career to studying how international law shaped Palestine, argues that legal obligations do not cease simply because they become inconvenient. This forms the basis of the 'Britain Owes Palestine' petition—a 400-page legal document co-authored by the writer.
This petition asserts that Britain acted illegally in Palestine between 1917 and 1948, and that the United Kingdom is now obligated to officially acknowledge and apologize for this history.
Through the Balfour Declaration, Britain promised to support a national home for one people in a land inhabited by another, without the consent of the majority of local residents. For three decades, the country governed while bound by incompatible obligations, which entrenched division and suppressed Palestinian self-determination, sometimes using emergency powers that legitimized collective punishment while closing courts to victims.
In 1948, Britain left the instability caused by its own policies, leaving the population unprotected. The Nakba—the 'catastrophe'—followed, resulting in over 750,000 Palestinians fleeing or being expelled from their homes. Today, the number of these refugees and their descendants runs into the millions.
The Refugee Convention established a universal framework for refugee protection, overseen by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). However, Palestinians were excluded from this system. Since they were already receiving assistance from the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), Article 1D of the convention excluded them from its scope as long as that aid continued. This was viewed as a temporary measure awaiting a swift political settlement.
Refugees whose displacement is most closely linked to British policy are the least protected under a regime that Britain helped create. Seventy-five years later, this 'temporary' arrangement still defines the status of the Palestinian refugee.
Although UNRWA provides vital services, it lacks the mandate to implement long-term solutions—voluntary return, local integration, or resettlement—which UNHCR offers to other groups of refugees. Since this agreement has never ended, generations of Palestinian refugees have remained without guarantees available to all others.
This unresolved legal anomaly is one reason why the petition presented to the government matters. It calls for the examination of classified archives, a full public response, an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, official apologies in Parliament, and serious consideration of reparations.
A coalition of 45 MPs from all parties and Lords urged the Prime Minister to respond. Nearly ten months after the petition was submitted, and despite Andy Burnham replacing Keir Starmer as Prime Minister this month, the government has made no statements.
This silence carries both legal and moral costs. Britain frequently cites the Refugee Convention and international law to criticize other states and defend its own reputation. Nevertheless, the authority of the law depends on consistent application, including its application to itself.
Britain cannot credibly advocate for refugee protection while refusing to acknowledge its role in creating a population of refugees excluded from the regime it helped build. A state confident enough to honestly examine its history is a state whose word on international law carries weight.
Acknowledging mistakes can take various forms: an apology in Parliament and investment in teaching history, which remains insufficiently covered in British schools. There are precedents: Britain has previously acknowledged and settled claims regarding colonial abuses, notably in the 2013 settlement with Kenyan victims affected during the Mau Mau uprising.
The Refugee Convention was born from the conviction that displacement demands responsibility. The petition merely asks Britain to apply its own principles consistently. Seventy-five years after the adoption of the Refugee Convention, Britain must answer Palestine.
The article presents an opinion on how the genocide committed by Israel has led to a whole generation of young doctors in Gaza being in a state of stagnation.
