Israel has announced new restrictions on international humanitarian organisations working in Gaza.
The move will affect dozens of aid groups, including Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, and 35 others .
The decision has sparked concern among aid agencies, governments, and international bodies, who warn it may further limit access to medical care and essential relief in a territory already experiencing a severe humanitarian crisis.
While often described as a ‘ban’, the policy operates through deregistration and suspension of operating permits. Aid organisations working in Gaza are now required to submit additional information about their staff, funding sources, and activities to Israeli authorities.
Organisations that fail to meet these requirements risk losing permission to operate, which can prevent them from bringing in staff, coordinating aid deliveries and running medical facilities.
Israel’s rationale
Israeli officials have argued that such restrictions are due to security concerns. The Israeli government has repeatedly stated that Hamas, which governed Gaza, has previously diverted humanitarian aid for military or political purposes.
According to this view, strict oversight of aid organisations is necessary to prevent resources such as fuel, medical supplies, or infrastructure from being used to support Hamas activity.
Israel has also maintained that humanitarian aid is not being stopped entirely. Instead, officials have said that aid continues to enter Gaza through approved crossings and that organisations willing to comply with the new rules can continue operating.
The government argues that it has a responsibility under domestic and international law to protect its citizens and ensure that humanitarian systems are not exploited during wartime.
Concerns raised by aid groups
Many humanitarian organisations strongly contest Israel’s claims. Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which has worked in Gaza for decades, says it verifiably operates under strict principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence.
MSF has also stated that it treats patients solely based on medical need and does not cooperate with armed groups.
One major concern is staff safety. Several INGOs argue that being required to provide detailed information about local Palestinian employees could place those workers at risk in an active conflict zone.
Others have pointed to legal issues, including data protection obligations under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which may limit how much personal information organisations can share with a foreign military authority.
Aid groups also argue that the restrictions undermine humanitarian neutrality. By tying access to political or security vetting, they say Israel risks blurring the line between humanitarian action and state policy, making it harder for aid workers to operate safely and independently.
Organizations expressed their concerns and offered alternatives to submitting staff lists, such as third-party vetting, but that Israel refused to engage in any dialogue.
Legal and international concerns
International reaction has grown increasingly critical. The United Nations, the European Union, and several governments have warned that restricting established humanitarian organisations could violate international humanitarian law.
Under the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict are required to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian assistance to civilians, provided aid organisations are neutral and impartial.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volkey Türk urged “all States, in particular those with influence, to take urgent steps and insist that Israel immediately allows aid to get into Gaza unhindered.
“Such arbitrary suspensions make an already intolerable situation even worse for the people of Gaza,” said Mr Türk.
Legal experts cited in international media have suggested that broad or arbitrary restrictions on aid groups could breach these obligations, particularly if they result in the denial of life-saving medical care.
EU officials have also warned that limiting organisations such as MSF could worsen an already severe humanitarian crisis and may be incompatible with Israel’s responsibilities as an occupying power under international law, a claim Israel disputes.
EU humanitarian chief, Hadja Lahbib, posted, “IHL [international humanitarian law] leaves no room for doubt: aid must reach those in need.”
Why it matters
For critics, the concern is that Israel is using administrative and security policy to exert control over civilian survival in Gaza, rather than narrowly addressing armed groups.
UN agencies and legal experts have warned that when access to healthcare, food, and humanitarian relief is restricted in an already devastated territory, the resulting harm falls overwhelmingly on civilians.
Limiting the work of aid organisations has been cited by humanitarian lawyers as raising serious questions under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit measures that collectively penalise civilian populations.
While framed as protection, critics argue the policy risks normalising the use of deprivation as a tool of pressure, deepening civilian suffering under the cover of security and leaving international safeguards increasingly hollow.
Daniel McGonigle is a third-year PhD researcher at the University of Galway and the Postgraduate Officer for the Students’ Union. He’s passionate about highlighting the importance of student activism and representation. When he’s not advocating for postgraduate rights he’s in the lab working on his COVID and muscle research.