How the Biden Administration Turned Humanitarian Aid in Gaza into a Weapon

A recent report by the American website Mondoweiss highlights the sudden disappearance of an update published on December 23 by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET)—an independent body supported by the U.S. government. The vanished update had forecast an imminent famine in the northern Gaza Strip, which remains under a severe Israeli blockade.

According to Mondoweiss, the removal of this update followed criticism by the U.S. ambassador to the Israeli occupation, who contested the population figures cited in the FEWS NET assessment, purportedly acting on directives from the U.S. government. This act of censorship, the report argues, directly compromises the United States’ credibility on global food security issues. It also underscores the troubling fact that the U.S.—once a world leader in setting standards to address food crises and prohibit the use of food as a weapon—now appears to be suppressing independent reports documenting Israel’s ongoing blockade of vital food supplies to northern Gaza.

Food as a Weapon

Mondoweiss points out that the year 1974 was pivotal in shaping global consensus on food security. Yet, it started with an American policy that effectively used food as a weapon against Bangladesh, leading to the death of 1.5 million people due to a famine stemming from trade disputes.

This withholding of assistance was a continuation of the Nixon/Kissinger policy, which supported an ally like Pakistan despite severe human rights violations during Bangladesh’s War of Independence in order to secure diplomatic benefits with China.

The article further notes that other policies contributed to fueling famines, such as Emperor Haile Selassie’s failure to address the famine in Ethiopia, which ultimately led to the collapse of his regime in favor of communist forces.

By the end of 1974, the world underwent a major shift in food security policy. During the World Food Conference convened by the United Nations, global powers agreed to establish new standards and institutions to manage worldwide food security.

By 1977, the use of food as a weapon was formally prohibited under Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. This principle has been reinforced by multiple international resolutions, including a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution in 2018, a U.S. Senate resolution in 2022, and a joint UN statement led by the United States in 2023.

During the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s—despite the adversarial Cold War climate—the United States under President Ronald Reagan abided by these standards. Reagan delivered food aid to starving Ethiopians, stating, “A hungry child does not know politics.”

The article explains that this famine was part of a broader African food crisis in the mid-1980s, which prompted USAID to establish FEWS NET. It began as an independent service for analysis and early warnings, and continues to operate in that capacity. After the United Nations adopted the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) in 2004, FEWS NET incorporated this global standard for famine assessment—recently applied to evaluate conditions in Gaza.

American Criticism

FEWS NET’s formal declaration of famine requires confirmation by an independent committee. However, its recent update on the situation in Gaza encountered resistance—most notably from the U.S. ambassador to the occupation, Jack Lew, who questioned the population figures used in the assessment.

Mondoweiss underscores that the ongoing war on Gaza has led to immense loss of life and, crucially, has damaged the global commitment to human rights and the laws of war—given the Biden administration’s reluctance to condemn Israel’s violations.

The article further points out that pressure from USAID to withdraw the FEWS NET update jeopardizes the network’s credibility. Since May, FEWS NET had warned of an impending famine in Gaza due to critical shortages of food supplies. A Famine Review Committee reaffirmed in November that certain parts of Gaza face the risk of famine, consistent with international humanitarian warnings. These alerts highlight the severity of Israel’s restrictions on food and aid inflow.

As Mondoweiss concludes, the United States now stands at a crossroads:

• • Either it allows its international reputation—already tarnished by its unconditional support for Israel—to deteriorate further,

• • Or it recommits to the very standards it once championed, condemns Israel’s abuses, and refrains from censoring urgent reports on the looming famine in Gaza.