Israel’s Cessation of Aid to Gaza and Demands for Ceasefire Extension: Strategic Calculations and Humanitarian Realities

Introduction

The Israeli government’s decision to halt all humanitarian aid to Gaza while demanding an extension of the first phase of its ceasefire agreement with Hamas has created a critical inflection point in the 15-month conflict.

This move, described by Egypt as “using starvation as a weapon,” has exacerbated an already dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and intensified geopolitical tensions.

The strategy reflects Israel’s determination to leverage humanitarian access as a bargaining chip to secure the release of hostages and delay negotiations over a permanent ceasefire—a stance Hamas condemns as “cheap blackmail.”

For Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, the abrupt aid cutoff has reignited fears of famine, reversed modest gains in food security achieved during the six-week truce, and forced reliance on dwindling stockpiles and informal networks. FAF analyzes Israel’s strategic objectives, the options available to Gaza’s civilian population, and the broader implications of this high-stakes gambit.

Israel’s Strategic Calculus: Hostage Recovery and Delaying Permanent Ceasefire Negotiations

Leveraging Aid to Pressure Hamas on Hostage Releases

Israel’s suspension of aid aligns with its demand for Hamas to accept a U.S.-mediated proposal to extend the first phase of the ceasefire, which expired on March 2, 2025.

The proposal, attributed to U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, calls for Hamas to release half of the remaining living and deceased hostages (approximately 30 individuals) at the start of a seven-week extension covering Ramadan and Passover, with the remainder freed upon reaching a permanent ceasefire agreement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office framed the aid blockage as a response to Hamas’s refusal to accept this framework, declaring, “Israel will not allow a ceasefire without the release of our hostages.”

This approach mirrors Israel’s long-standing dilemma: balancing the imperative to dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities with the need to recover hostages.

By freezing aid, Israel aims to pressure Hamas into prioritizing hostage releases over its demand for a guaranteed pathway to a permanent ceasefire—a concession Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition opposes.

Internal Israeli assessments suggest the government believes Gaza has sufficient stockpiles from the 21,000 aid trucks that entered during the truce to endure months of restrictions.

However, this assumption overlooks the uneven distribution of supplies and the collapse of Gaza’s commercial markets under wartime inflation.

Avoiding Commitments to Withdrawal and Permanent Ceasefire

A core Israeli objective is delaying negotiations over the second phase of the ceasefire, which Hamas insists must include a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a commitment to end hostilities permanently. The original agreement, brokered in January 2025, envisioned a three-phase process:

Phase 1

Six-week truce with hostage-prisoner exchanges and increased aid.

Phase 2

Negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal.

Phase 3

Reconstruction and post-conflict governance arrangements.

Israel seeks to extend Phase 1 indefinitely, maintaining military control over Gaza while avoiding binding commitments to withdraw or end the war.

This strategy allows Netanyahu to appease far-right coalition partners who oppose concessions to Hamas while deflecting U.S. pressure for a political resolution.

By attributing the extension proposal to Witkoff, Israel also positions the U.S. as a guarantor of its right to resume military operations if talks stall—a provision Netanyahu emphasized to his cabinet.

Domestic and International Legitimacy Concerns

The aid suspension risks further isolating Israel diplomatically. Saudi Arabia condemned the move as “collective punishment,” while the U.N. humanitarian chief warned it violates international law.

Even the Trump administration, historically aligned with Israel, has remained silent on the decision—a departure from its vocal support during earlier phases of the war.

Domestically, Netanyahu faces pressure from hostage families demanding faster recovery efforts and far-right factions opposing any truce extensions. The aid cutoff represents a compromise: applying maximum pressure on Hamas without immediately resuming full-scale combat operations that could endanger hostages and draw international condemnation.

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis and Civilian Survival Strategies

Immediate Impacts of the Aid Blockade

The cessation of aid—including food, medical supplies, and fuel—has had immediate consequences:

Price Inflation

Staple food prices tripled within hours of the announcement, with reports of a kilogram of rice rising from $6 to $18.

Health System Collapse

Hospitals, reliant on fuel for generators, face shutdowns as remaining stocks dwindle.

Nutritional Decline

After six weeks of improved access to fresh produce, families have reverted to canned goods and foraged plants.

The U.N. estimates that 85% of Gaza’s population now relies entirely on humanitarian aid, up from 70% before the ceasefire.

With border crossings closed, even pre-existing stockpiles are inaccessible due to distribution challenges and Hamas’s control over supply chains.

Civilian Coping Mechanisms

Gaza’s civilians have adopted several survival strategies, though their efficacy is limited:

Informal Markets and Black-Market Networks

During the ceasefire, informal markets emerged as a lifeline, offering goods smuggled through tunnels or sold by traders who stockpiled aid.

However, Israel’s blockade has restricted these channels, leading to rampant price gouging.

In Jabaliya, a bag of flour now costs $120—10 times the pre-war price—forcing families to sell jewelry and appliances for food.

Community Solidarity and Shared Resources

Communal kitchens, often organized by local mosques or NGOs, have expanded operations. In Khan Younis, volunteers distribute meals cooked over wood fires, though ingredients are scarce. “We pool whatever we have—a handful of rice, some lentils—and make soup for 50 people,” said Um Mohammad, a volunteer. Such efforts, however, cannot offset the aid deficit.

Pressure on Hamas to Negotiate

Civilians have increasingly vocalized demands for Hamas to prioritize aid resumption over political objectives. “We don’t care about phases or ceasefires; we need food now,” said Ahmed al-Madhoun, a Gaza City resident.

This discontent poses a dilemma for Hamas: acceding to Israeli demands risks appearing weak but ignoring public desperation could erode its governance legitimacy.

International Advocacy and Legal Challenges

Five NGOs petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court on March 2, arguing the aid blockade violates international law.

Simultaneously, Gaza-based activists leverage social media to document shortages, aiming to galvanize global pressure. These efforts face obstacles, including internet restrictions and Israel’s dismissal of legal petitions.

Long-Term Risks: Famine and Disease Resurgence

Before the ceasefire, 90% of Gazans faced acute food insecurity, with 50% experiencing “catastrophic” hunger.

The World Food Programme warns that the current aid cutoff could trigger famine within four weeks, particularly in northern Gaza, where 300,000 residents remain cut off from aid corridors.

Compounding this, waterborne diseases like cholera are resurfacing due to contaminated water sources and inadequate sanitation.

International Reactions and Diplomatic Implications

Regional Condemnation and Mediator Fatigue

Egypt, a key mediator, accused Israel of “flagrant violations of humanitarian law” and warned that starvation tactics undermine ceasefire prospects.

Qatar, another mediator, has grown increasingly frustrated with Israel’s demands, with one official stating, “You cannot claim to support peace while weaponizing aid.”

Saudi Arabia’s criticism reflects broader Arab anger, complicating U.S. efforts to broker normalization deals between Israel and Arab states.

Humanitarian Organizations’ Warnings

Aid agencies universally condemned the aid suspension:

Oxfam

Called it “reckless collective punishment”.

MSF

Accused Israel of using aid as a “bargaining chip.”

ICRC

Warned that halting aid “risks plunging people back into despair.”

These groups highlight that Israel, as the occupying power under international law, bears responsibility for ensuring civilian access to essentials—a duty affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2024 interim ruling.

U.S. and EU Policy Dilemmas

The U.S. faces mounting pressure to condition military aid to Israel, though the Trump administration has avoided public criticism.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated, “Hunger cannot be a negotiation tactic,” signaling potential sanctions if the blockade persists.

However, geopolitical divisions—with Hungary and Greece opposing punitive measures—limit the EU’s leverage.

Potential Pathways and Outcomes

Scenario 1

Hamas Accepts Ceasefire Extension

If Hamas agrees to release hostages under Israel’s terms, aid would resume, and Phase 1 would extend through April 20.

This would postpone discussions on Phase 2, allowing Israel to maintain military control. However, Hamas’s insistence on guaranteeing a permanent ceasefire makes this unlikely.

Scenario 2

Escalation to Full-Scale Conflict

Netanyahu has threatened “further consequences,” including renewed airstrikes and ground techniques if Hamas rejects the proposal.

Such escalation would deepen Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and risk regional spillover, particularly along Israel’s northern border with Hezbollah.

Scenario 3

International Intervention

The U.N. Security Council could vote to mandate aid access, though U.S. veto power poses a hurdle. Alternatively, Arab states might organize airdrops or maritime aid corridors, though Israel has previously blocked such efforts.

Scenario 4

Civilian-Led Protests

Mass protests in Gaza pressuring Hamas to prioritize aid could force concessions. Similarly, demonstrations in Israel demanding hostage recovery might push Netanyahu to soften his stance.

Both scenarios remain speculative given current repression capacities.

Conclusion

A Precarious Balancing Act

Israel’s aid blockade represents a high-risk strategy to regain leverage over Hamas while avoiding politically costly concessions. For Gazans, the policy has erased fleeting gains from the truce, forcing a return to survival tactics that delay but cannot prevent widespread starvation.

International law violations and regional alienation further complicate Israel’s position, suggesting the tactic may backfire by hardening Hamas’s resolve and eroding global support.

As Ramadan unfolds, the coming weeks will test whether humanitarian imperatives can override the zero-sum calculus of war.