How did international humanitarian groups respond to the Israel-Hamas conflict post-October 7?
Executive summary
International humanitarian groups repeatedly warned of a “dire humanitarian collapse” in Gaza and called for sustained, unimpeded access and an immediate ceasefire; major actors including MSF, the ICRC/Red Crescent, UNICEF and UN agencies pressed for humanitarian corridors while documenting mass casualties and service collapse [1] [2] [3]. After October 7, 2023 and through subsequent ceasefires and resumptions of fighting up to late 2025, humanitarian delivery remained highly constrained by Israeli restrictions, new governance proposals and competing narratives that have limited established NGOs’ access [1] [4] [5].
1. Emergency alarms: aid agencies declared a humanitarian catastrophe
Within days and weeks of the October 7 attacks, international medical and UN agencies publicly warned that Gaza faced catastrophic shortages of food, water, medicine and fuel and urged immediate humanitarian pauses and protections for civilians; Doctors Without Borders (MSF) called for a sustained ceasefire and documented repeated attacks on civilians and health care, while UN agencies and the Red Cross highlighted collapsing services and mass displacement [2] [1].
2. Calls for ceasefires and hostage-sensitive pauses shaped humanitarian messaging
Humanitarian groups consistently linked aid access to ceasefires or phased pauses that would allow safe corridors and hostage exchanges. Governments and mediators also pursued phased ceasefire-hostage deals that humanitarian actors said were necessary to reach civilians; U.S. and regional mediation sought multi-phase agreements explicitly to expand aid and protect civilians [3] [5].
3. Access vs. control: delivery improved in theory but was restricted in practice
Several sources show that ceasefires included promises to increase aid — for example agreements that would allow thousands of truckloads per day — but aid organisations reported persistent Israeli restrictions, negotiation burdens and operational barriers that prevented predictable, large-scale delivery. Independent aid workers said they still had to “negotiate aggressively for every tiny thing” despite ceasefire pledges [1] [4].
4. Accusations and new governance structures complicated humanitarian neutrality
Israeli accusations that some UN or NGO actors had been compromised by Hamas produced political pressure and text in international drafts seeking to bar organisations found to have misused aid; those provisions were controversial and seen by agencies as targeting bodies like UNRWA, which denied complicity [5]. The contested political environment led to tighter scrutiny and in some instances to new U.S.-backed governance proposals that shifted oversight responsibilities [5] [4].
5. Operational squeeze: registration rules, denied entries and sidelining of established NGOs
Reporting from aid workers documented new NGO registration rules and practices that denied many established organisations the ability to bring goods and personnel into Gaza, effectively sidelining the traditional humanitarian system and forcing reliance on alternative mechanisms or ad hoc arrangements [4].
6. Health and famine warnings: medical groups and the IRC sounded the loudest alarms
Medical NGOs documented direct harm to healthcare services from attacks and siege conditions; MSF publicly recorded strikes and described a “siege” affecting patient care [2]. The International Rescue Committee and UN food agencies warned of severe food insecurity and, by 2025, even famine conditions in Gaza City, urging guaranteed access and protection for aid operations [6].
7. Donor and political responses: funding pledges alongside diplomatic endorsements
At the state and bloc level, actors endorsed ceasefire deals and mobilised finance — for example the EU endorsed the October 2025 ceasefire and proposed up to €1.6 billion in support for 2025–27 — but humanitarian actors warned that funding alone cannot substitute for secure, rapid, and impartial access on the ground [7] [5].
8. Diverging narratives: whose account determines “access”?
Aid workers reported that the narratives shaping operational control often came from Israeli authorities and some guarantors, which affected how multilateral coordination bodies and military-led logistics centres operated; this created tension between claims of improved delivery and the lived reality of restricted, politicised humanitarian action [4] [5].
9. Limitations and what's not in the sources
Available sources document agency statements, access problems, ceasefire-linked pledges, and new governance proposals through late 2025 [1] [2] [4] [5]. Sources do not provide a complete, itemised accounting of every humanitarian convoy, the full list of NGOs denied entry, nor a daily operational log of access decisions — those granular operational data are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
10. Bottom line: humanitarian intent constrained by politics and control
International humanitarian groups responded with repeated public warnings, medical relief efforts where possible, and sustained calls for ceasefires and unimpeded access; but political disputes, allegations of misuse, new oversight proposals and Israeli operational control over aid delivery materially constrained those responses and left large gaps between pledges and on-the-ground assistance [2] [4] [5].