UN chief calls on Israel to reverse NGOs ban in Gaza

The recent call by UN Secretary-General António Guterres for Israel to reverse its ban on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) operating in Gaza highlights a critical intersection of international humanitarian law, geopolitical conflict, and the complex role of international bodies. Israel justifies its new regulation by claiming it aims to prevent organizations accused of supporting terrorism from operating in Palestinian territories, specifically referencing the Gaza Strip.

To truly understand this issue, one must delve into the protracted background of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Gaza Strip, a small, densely populated coastal enclave, has been under an Israeli-Egyptian blockade since 2007, following Hamas's takeover of the territory. Prior to this, Israel had unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, withdrawing its settlements and military presence. However, due to its continued control over Gaza's air, sea, and most land borders, the UN and many international bodies still consider Israel an occupying power, with obligations under international humanitarian law. The blockade has severely crippled Gaza's economy, leading to widespread poverty, high unemployment, and a heavy reliance on humanitarian aid. Essential services like healthcare, water, and sanitation are often on the brink of collapse, making the work of NGOs absolutely vital for the survival and well-being of its approximately 2 million residents.

The current development, where Israel is implementing regulations to ban certain NGOs, stems from its long-standing security concerns. Israel views Hamas, the de facto governing authority in Gaza, as a terrorist organization and frequently takes measures to counter what it perceives as threats originating from the Strip. This includes intercepting aid, monitoring financial flows, and scrutinizing organizations operating in the area. While Israel asserts these measures are necessary for national security, the UN and many human rights organizations argue that such bans, especially without clear and publicly verifiable evidence against specific organizations, often impede legitimate humanitarian work and disproportionately affect the civilian population. The principle of distinction, a cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), mandates that military operations must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach civilians without impediment.

Key stakeholders in this issue include the **United Nations**, which, through bodies like UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) and OCHA (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), is a primary provider and facilitator of aid in Gaza and a staunch advocate for IHL. **Israel** is a sovereign state exercising control over its borders and security, justifying its actions based on national security concerns. The **Palestinian Authority (PA)**, though having limited control in Gaza, advocates for Palestinian rights and welfare. **International NGOs** are on the front lines, delivering essential services, and are directly impacted by such bans. Finally, the broader **International Community**, including donor nations, observes these developments, often calling for adherence to international law and humanitarian principles.

For India, this issue resonates with its foreign policy principles and strategic interests. India has historically maintained a nuanced position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, advocating for a two-state solution where a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state coexists peacefully with Israel. While India has significantly deepened its strategic and economic ties with Israel in recent decades, its support for the Palestinian cause remains a cornerstone of its foreign policy. India's commitment to multilateralism and the role of the UN, enshrined in its foreign policy doctrines, means it generally supports the UN's efforts to uphold international law and provide humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, stability in the West Asia region is crucial for India's energy security and the welfare of its large diaspora in the Gulf. Any escalation of humanitarian crises or conflict in the region could have economic and social ramifications for India.

Looking ahead, the UN chief's call puts international pressure on Israel, but whether it leads to a reversal of the ban remains uncertain. This situation underscores the ongoing tension between a state's right to ensure its security and its obligations under international humanitarian law to facilitate humanitarian aid. Future implications could include a further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, increased international scrutiny of Israel's policies, and continued debate within the UN and other international forums regarding the enforcement of IHL in protracted conflicts. It also highlights the precarious position of NGOs, which often operate in challenging environments, caught between geopolitical realities and humanitarian imperatives.

While no specific Indian constitutional article directly governs this international situation, India's foreign policy is guided by the **Directive Principles of State Policy**, particularly **Article 51**, which mandates the State to 'endeavour to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.' This article forms the foundational basis for India's support for the UN's role in advocating for international law, humanitarian principles, and peaceful resolution of conflicts, making such global developments highly relevant to understanding India's stance on world affairs.