Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Inadequacy of Airdrops in Addressing SDG 2: Zero Hunger

Amidst escalating international pressure regarding starvation in Gaza, Israel has proposed humanitarian aid delivery via airdrops. This method, however, is widely considered an inadequate and desperate measure that fails to meaningfully contribute to the achievement of SDG 2: Zero Hunger. The goal aims to end hunger and ensure access for all people, particularly the poor and people in vulnerable situations, to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round. The proposed airdrops are fundamentally at odds with this objective for several reasons:

• Insufficient Volume: Air transport delivers significantly less aid volume compared to terrestrial convoys of trucks, making it an inefficient solution for a large-scale hunger crisis.
• Ineffective Distribution: Airdropped pallets often land inaccurately, far from the intended recipients. In the densely populated displacement areas of Gaza, this presents a logistical impossibility for effective and equitable distribution.
• Risk of Diversion: The chaotic nature of airdrops increases the likelihood that aid will be seized by organized criminal elements for profit, rather than reaching the families in most desperate need.

Violations of International Law and Setbacks for SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

International partners, including Britain, France, and Germany, have issued stark warnings, calling on the Israeli government to lift restrictions on aid and allow humanitarian organizations to operate freely. This situation highlights a severe challenge to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, which promotes the rule of law and ensures equal access to justice for all. Israel’s assertion that it places no limits on aid is contested by the United Nations and other international bodies, indicating a breakdown in accountability and adherence to international humanitarian law. The primary solution advocated by relief professionals—a ceasefire and unrestricted land access—aligns with the principles of SDG 16 by seeking a peaceful resolution and the restoration of lawful, institutionalized aid processes.

Risks to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Airdropping aid is not only inefficient but also poses direct threats to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. Historical precedents from conflicts in Iraqi Kurdistan (1991) and Bosnia (1993) demonstrate that this method is fraught with danger. The pursuit of life-sustaining aid can paradoxically lead to injury and death, creating a direct conflict with the goal of ensuring healthy lives.

1. Fatal Accidents: Heavy aid pallets dropped from altitude can cause severe property damage and have been documented to kill and injure civilians, including families in tents, upon impact.
2. Hazardous Retrieval: Desperate civilians may be forced to enter dangerous areas, such as minefields, to retrieve scattered aid packages, resulting in death and maiming.
3. Increased Conflict: The scarcity and high value of airdropped supplies can incite violence and conflict among desperate individuals and groups competing for essential resources.

The Failure of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals and the Call for Sustainable Solutions

The current impasse represents a failure of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which emphasizes the need for global cooperation to achieve sustainable development. Relief professionals categorize airdrops as a last resort, to be used only when all other access is impossible. This is not the case for Gaza, which has viable and far more effective land routes for aid delivery, such as through Israel’s port of Ashdod or the Jordanian border. The reliance on a performative, high-risk method like airdrops instead of leveraging established, sustainable logistical channels undermines the spirit of partnership and effective problem-solving. Achieving the SDGs in this context requires a recommitment to international cooperation, prioritizing a ceasefire and the establishment of an unrestricted, long-term humanitarian aid operation via land routes. This is the only approach that can sustainably address the crisis in line with global development objectives.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The article’s central theme is the “starvation in Gaza” and the urgent need to “end hunger.” It directly addresses the goal of achieving food security and ending all forms of malnutrition. The entire discussion revolves around the failure to provide adequate food to a population in crisis.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The humanitarian crisis is a direct result of conflict. The article mentions “war in Bosnia,” the “1991 Gulf War,” and the current situation in Gaza. Furthermore, it explicitly references the need for Israel to “uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law,” which is a core component of promoting justice and the rule of law.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The article highlights the role of international cooperation and partnerships. It details the “strong statements” from allies like “Britain, France and Germany” and the essential role of the “UN and humanitarian NGOs.” The discussion about coordinating aid delivery, whether through airdrops or land convoys, is fundamentally about the effectiveness of partnerships in achieving humanitarian goals.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• While not the primary focus, the consequences of the crisis described directly impact health and well-being. Starvation is a critical health issue. The article also mentions people being “killed and maimed in explosions” while trying to retrieve aid and “families killed when heavy pallets dropped on their tents,” which relates to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being by preventing avoidable deaths and injuries.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article’s focus on “starvation in Gaza” and the struggle of “hundreds of thousands of starving Palestinian civilians” to get food directly relates to this target of ending hunger and ensuring food access for a vulnerable population.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article describes a conflict setting and mentions past wars. It details how people were “killed and maimed” and “families killed” as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and the methods of aid delivery, highlighting the failure to meet this target.
• Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The call from Britain, France, and Germany for Israel to “uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law” is a direct invocation of this target.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• Target 17.16: “Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships…” The article discusses the interactions between nations (Israel, Britain, France, Germany), international organizations (“the UN”), and “humanitarian NGOs.” The entire narrative is about the challenges and necessity of these partnerships to deliver aid effectively.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

For SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

• Prevalence of Starvation/Hunger: The repeated use of the words “starvation” and “hunger” implies that the prevalence of severe food insecurity (Indicator 2.1.2) is extremely high. The desperation of people fighting over aid pallets is a qualitative indicator of this.
• Volume of Aid Delivered: The article implies this is a key metric by contrasting the low volume of airdrops (“Dropping aid delivers very little”) with the higher capacity of land transport (“Even big transport planes do not carry as much as a convoy of lorries”). The number of aid trucks allowed to enter Gaza is a clear, measurable indicator.

For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• Conflict-related Deaths and Injuries: The article mentions people being “killed and maimed” and “families killed.” The number of civilian casualties (related to Indicator 16.1.2) is a direct measure of the level of violence.
• Adherence to International Law: The call for Israel to “uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law” and to “lift restrictions on the flow of aid” makes adherence to these legal frameworks a key, albeit qualitative, indicator of progress towards justice.

For SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

• Unrestricted Humanitarian Access: The primary demand from international partners is to “immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and urgently allow the UN and humanitarian NGOs to carry out their work.” Therefore, the level of access granted to these organizations serves as a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the partnership and cooperation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com