Gaza food crisis deepens as Israel blocks flour supplies, leaving only seven bakeries operating and 1.4 million Palestinians facing acute hunger.

Related: New U.S. and Israeli Military Actions Against Iran Would Be Underway

---

Gaza Food Crisis Worsens as Israel Blocks Flour Supplies

The Gaza food crisis has reached a critical point after Israel blocked commercial flour shipments, leaving Gaza’s last seven operating bakeries at risk of closing within 48 hours.

Abdul Nasser al-Ajrami, head of the Gaza Bakeries Association, warned on Thursday, October 22, that flour reserves in the enclave had been exhausted.

He said the remaining bakeries would stop producing bread within two days unless new supplies were allowed to enter.

“Israel kept the crossings closed throughout last week and continues to strangle the supply of commercial flour even after partially reopening them,” al-Ajrami said.

He added that the small amount of flour previously stored had already run out, forcing several bakeries to shut down.

Only seven of the 20 bakeries that had been operating in Gaza remained active when the warning was issued.

The closure of bakeries would deprive families of one of the few remaining sources of affordable food in the devastated territory.

Bread is a basic staple for Palestinian households, particularly as prices for other foods have risen sharply amid shortages and reduced humanitarian assistance.

The Gaza food crisis has worsened as commercial supplies have been blocked and international aid has been reduced.

Al-Ajrami said the flour currently sold in local markets comes from the United Nations World Food Programme, known as the WFP.

Commercial bakeries that depend on supplies brought through the crossings have been left without raw materials.

The shortage has intensified since the WFP announced a severe funding deficit and reduced food assistance for more than half a million people in Gaza.

The reduction has left more families competing for limited flour while prices continue to rise.

Gaza Food Crisis Deepens as WFP Cuts Aid

World Food Programme | United Nations News

The Gaza food crisis has been compounded by a major reduction in humanitarian assistance from the World Food Programme.

On October 19, the WFP announced that funding shortages had forced it to cut food assistance in Gaza by about one-third.

The agency said the number of people receiving food and cash assistance would fall from 1.6 million in September to 1.1 million in October.

That means approximately 500,000 people will lose access to critical food support as winter approaches.

The WFP has also halved food rations. Families receiving assistance will now receive one food parcel instead of two, along with a smaller bag of wheat flour.

The agency has reduced daily hot meals from 250,000 to 150,000 and cut cash assistance for 75,000 families.

The WFP said the cuts were not caused by a reduction in humanitarian needs or by a lack of access to deliver aid.

“We don’t have the funding to sustain the levels of assistance that are required,” said Shaun Hughes, the WFP’s representative and country director in Palestine.

The agency said it urgently needs $450 million to maintain critical operations in Gaza and the West Bank from October 2026 to March 2027.

The WFP received less than half of the funding allocated to its operations in Palestine in 2026 compared with previous years.

The funding shortfall has come at a time when approximately 1.4 million people, or 67 percent of Gaza’s population, face acute food insecurity at crisis levels or worse.

The WFP estimates that around 200,000 people are experiencing emergency conditions and require immediate food assistance to prevent deaths from hunger.

The agency said it can still support bakeries that cover one-third of Gaza’s bread needs, provide nutrition assistance to 300,000 women and children and deliver school snacks to 200,000 students.

However, the reduction in aid has placed additional pressure on families already struggling to obtain basic food supplies.

Gaza Food Crisis Exposes Impact of Israel’s Blockade

United Nations Relief and Works Agency | World Health Organization

The Gaza food crisis is closely linked to Israel’s restrictions on the entry of food, fuel, medicine and humanitarian aid.

Human rights organizations say Israeli authorities have repeatedly closed Gaza’s crossings since early October, obstructing the entry of essential supplies.

The closures have deepened shortages of flour, cooking gas, fuel and medical materials across the enclave.

The Rafah crossing has remained closed to sick and injured Palestinians waiting to be evacuated for treatment abroad.

International health organizations have also raised concerns about continued attacks on medical facilities and the detention of healthcare workers.

Gaza’s Ministry of Social Development warned that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians face an imminent humanitarian catastrophe if restrictions on flour and bakery supplies continue.

The ministry called for immediate action to stop what it described as Israel’s systematic policy of starvation and the use of food as a weapon against civilians.

Israel has said the disruption in commercial deliveries stems from a fiscal dispute between traders and the administration led by Hamas.

Palestinian traders have rejected that explanation and say the restrictions remain in place.

The Israeli military has said commercial goods would resume entering Gaza after a five-day pause.

However, Palestinian traders reported that major cuts to food supplies remained in force and that the blockade had become increasingly severe.

The WFP said the halt in commercial truck entries through the Kerem Abu Salem crossing was further restricting supplies entering Gaza.

The organization warned that restrictions on goods entering the territory were holding back recovery and reducing the purchasing power of families.

The Gaza food crisis has been aggravated by the destruction of infrastructure, displacement and the collapse of local agriculture and food production.

Most of Gaza’s population has been displaced, with many families living in tents or overcrowded shelters without reliable access to clean water, sanitation or cooking fuel.

The World Health Organization has warned that malnutrition, disease and the collapse of healthcare services are creating a deadly combination for civilians.

Geopolitical Context

The Gaza food crisis has implications beyond the immediate humanitarian emergency because it reflects the broader political and military conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Control over crossings, food supplies and humanitarian aid has become a central element of the conflict.

International law requires parties to a conflict to allow humanitarian assistance to reach civilians and to protect access to food, water and medical care.

Human rights organizations argue that the deliberate restriction of essential goods may constitute collective punishment and a violation of international humanitarian law.

The crisis has drawn attention from the United Nations, international courts and humanitarian agencies, which have repeatedly called for unrestricted access to Gaza.

The situation also has regional implications. Egypt, Jordan and other neighboring countries have faced pressure to facilitate aid deliveries and medical evacuations.

The closure of the Rafah crossing has left injured and seriously ill Palestinians unable to leave Gaza for treatment.

The Gaza food crisis could further destabilize the region by increasing displacement, deepening poverty and fueling anger across the Arab and Muslim world.

The United Nations has warned that famine risk remains high as winter approaches and humanitarian funding declines.

The WFP has said that recent modest improvements in food security remain fragile and could be reversed if access and funding are not restored.

The immediate priority is to allow flour, fuel and medical supplies to enter Gaza and to restore the operations of bakeries and humanitarian kitchens.

Without urgent action, the Gaza food crisis could push the territory into a new phase of mass hunger and deepen one of the world’s most severe humanitarian emergencies.

---

European leaders are considering appointing a senior representative to negotiate with Russia over Ukraine. But the search exposes a more fundamental problem: whether Europe can transform its economic strength, military resources and political influence into an independent capacity to shape its own security.

Europe is searching for someone capable of negotiating with Vladimir Putin. Yet the question confronting European capitals is considerably more difficult than identifying a politician with sufficient experience, authority and diplomatic skill. It is whether Europe possesses the political unity and strategic independence to negotiate with Moscow on equal terms.

According to diplomatic accounts published on 22nd October, five European leaders have emerged as possible representatives: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Czech President Petr Pavel, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

No appointment has been announced, and a group of negotiators may ultimately prove more acceptable than a single representative. The initiative reflects concern that Washington’s negotiations with Moscow could produce arrangements affecting European security without sufficient European influence over their terms.

The European Commission insists that the EU is already participating in diplomatic consultations, including discussions held in Oslo on 20th October. But participation in preliminary meetings is not the same as possessing the authority to determine the outcome.

The paradox of European power

Europe’s predicament contains an extraordinary contradiction. The European Union is among Ukraine’s principal financial supporters. Its governments provide military assistance, maintain sanctions against Russia and control decisions affecting Moscow’s future access to European markets. Nevertheless, European capitals remain concerned that the decisive political framework for ending the war could be negotiated principally between Washington and Moscow.

This anxiety has intensified under President Donald Trump, whose transactional approach increasingly treats diplomatic settlements as exchanges of economic concessions and strategic advantages.

As EU Today recently examined, proposals involving sanctions relief, renewed energy cooperation and commercial opportunities raise the possibility of arrangements that depend upon European consent but are negotiated elsewhere.

Washington can discuss reopening economic relations with Russia. It cannot independently reverse European sanctions, guarantee Ukraine’s accession to the EU or decide the continent’s future security arrangements. The European Council explicitly reaffirmed this distinction in its conclusions of 16th October, insisting that decisions affecting the Union’s security and responsibilities belong to Europe itself.

The central issue is therefore not whether Europe has influence, but whether it can organise that influence into a coherent negotiating position.

Why Ukraine must help choose Europe’s representative

An equally important weakness would arise if European governments selected their representative without making Kyiv an integral participant in the decision.

Ukraine is not merely the geographical subject of negotiations. Its government controls whether a proposed settlement can acquire political legitimacy, while its armed forces determine much of what can be implemented on the ground.

A negotiated agreement rejected by Kyiv could neither reliably end the war nor provide the security arrangements that Europe seeks.

European security, moreover, can no longer be considered independently of Ukraine’s military capabilities. Ukrainian forces possess extensive operational experience against Russia, including in drone warfare, electronic warfare and long-range strikes.

Any future continental defence architecture that excludes this experience would disregard one of Europe’s most consequential military assets.

An effective European representative would therefore require a mandate developed jointly with Ukraine, rather than simply endorsed by European governments after the event.

The danger of negotiating without leverage

The proposed candidates illustrate the difficulty of combining political authority with negotiating credibility. Meloni possesses a working relationship with Trump and considerable influence within European conservative politics. Stubb combines experience of Russia’s immediate neighbourhood with access to Washington. Pavel brings military expertise and an understanding of NATO’s command structures. Yet none could independently commit Europe’s governments to financial, military or territorial-security obligations.

This is the fundamental weakness of the proposed office. A negotiator requires more than access to powerful leaders. The ability to make commitments, withhold concessions and impose costs is what gives diplomatic representation substance.

Europe possesses potentially significant instruments: sanctions, industrial capacity, financial assistance and growing defence expenditure. But these remain distributed across institutions and national governments with differing strategic priorities.

Poland, the Baltic states and Nordic governments approach Russian security threats differently from several Western and Southern European capitals. Reconciling those positions is not an administrative exercise. It is a prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy.

The historical shadow of Yalta

The search also reflects European concern about a return to great-power bargaining over the continent’s political geography.

The historical comparison frequently invoked is Yalta in 1945, when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discussed Europe’s post-war settlement. Munich in 1938 offers another warning about negotiating territorial concessions at the expense of directly affected states. Neither precedent precisely describes the present situation.

Unlike the countries subjected to Soviet domination after the Second World War, today’s European states possess established institutions, substantial economic resources and collective defence arrangements. Ukraine, meanwhile, has demonstrated that Russia cannot simply dictate its political future through military superiority.

Nevertheless, the danger lies in accepting the underlying principle that powerful states possess a privileged right to determine the sovereignty and security choices of their neighbours.

Moscow’s demands concerning NATO, Ukrainian territory and Europe’s wider security arrangements extend beyond any conventional ceasefire negotiation.

A European representative would have to challenge that premise rather than merely negotiate the geographical limits of Russian influence.

From diplomatic representation to strategic authority

The debate inevitably leads to Europe’s military dependence upon the United States. An American withdrawal from NATO is not inevitable. Indeed, US legislation restricts unilateral presidential withdrawal. But Washington could substantially reduce its military commitments without formally abandoning the alliance.

Europe must therefore consider how much independent military capacity it requires to support its diplomatic positions. That entails coordinated procurement, integrated military planning, sustainable defence production and deeper cooperation with Britain, Norway, Canada and Ukraine. Recent security challenges in the Black Sea illustrate the difficulty of converting European diplomatic commitments into effective collective action.

These developments would not automatically create a European army or replace NATO. They could, however, give European governments greater freedom to act if American priorities diverge from their own.

The relationship between military capability and diplomacy is particularly important in dealing with Moscow. European representatives cannot expect Russia to revise its demands simply because Brussels has selected a more prominent interlocutor.

Russia would have to conclude that continued aggression carries greater costs than a settlement respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. Europe’s diplomatic standing would then derive not from the personality of its representative but from the collective resources and political commitments behind that individual.

The immediate search for a negotiator may appear a limited diplomatic initiative. Its implications are considerably larger.

For decades, European security rested upon an arrangement in which American military power compensated for Europe’s fragmented strategic authority. The present negotiations are exposing the limitations of that model. The decisive question is not whether Meloni, Stubb, Pavel or another European leader can secure a place at the negotiating table. It is whether Europe can establish a common position, backed by Ukraine’s consent and by sufficient economic and military power, that neither Washington nor Moscow can disregard.

Without those foundations, a European envoy risks becoming a participant in decisions made by others. With them, the appointment could mark the beginning of a substantially different European role in international security.

Organizers warn that weaker tariff protections could threaten domestic rice production, jobs and food security.

---

Social and political groups in the Dominican Republic are protesting a government decision to scrap tariff protections for domestically produced rice, warning that the move could expose local farmers to increased import competition.

RELATED: ICE Agent Shoots Dominican Man in New York, Sparking Protests

The Broad Front (Frente Amplio) and the Jesús Adón Popular Bloc (Bloque Popular Jesús Adón) have called for a march in Nagua on Sunday, Oct. 25, demanding stronger government measures to protect domestic rice production. The demonstration is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. at the town’s main park, on the road toward San Francisco de Macorís. Organizers have urged farmers, agricultural workers, traders and social organizations across the northeastern region to take part.

The protest centers on Decree 635-26, issued by President Luis Abinader on Sept. 9, 2026, which repealed Decree 693-24. The previous measure established a tariff system intended to shield locally produced rice from international competition.

#DOMINICANA | Tras intensas presiones de Estados Unidos, el Gobierno dominicano derogó la medida arancelaria que protegía la producción nacional de arroz. Organizaciones sociales y productores denuncian que la eliminación de estas salvaguardas bajo el tratado DR-CAFTA vulnera la… pic.twitter.com/ZCVO0Om8iz

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 23, 2026

Text Reads: Following intense pressure from the United States, the Dominican Government repealed the tariff measure that protected the national rice production. Social organizations and producers denounce that the elimination of these safeguards under the DR-CAFTA treaty violates the country’s food sovereignty.

Under the former rules, certain imports within the tariff-rate quota faced a 20% tariff, while imports exceeding the quota were subject to a 99% rate. The system allowed 23,300 metric tons of rice from the United States to enter the Dominican market duty-free, with imports above that volume subject to the higher tariff.

María Teresa Cabrera, president of the Broad Front, said the decision to remove the protections stemmed from external commercial pressure linked to bilateral negotiations with the United States over access to the Dominican agricultural market.

Cabrera warned that weakening tariffs could undermine a sector encompassing more than 30,000 producers and supporting tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Rice production also sustains related economic activities, including transportation, supply and marketing.

“Rice is not just another commodity: it is an essential food for the Dominican people and the livelihood of thousands of farming and working families. Weakening domestic production to favor imports could have economic and social consequences extending far beyond the countryside. Food security is also a matter of national sovereignty,” Cabrera said.

The decision has also raised concerns among agricultural organizations, which are seeking clarity on the safeguards and competitiveness measures the government intends to introduce to protect domestic production.

The Dominican government has said it is pursuing diplomatic and commercial negotiations with international counterparts to renegotiate the terms while maintaining controls on rice imports.

The planned march comes as agricultural groups press the government for assurances that domestic rice producers will remain protected under any revised trade arrangements.

Venezuela’s new food security plan aims to eliminate undernourishment by 2030 through domestic production and expanded distribution.

---

Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has launched a national food security plan aimed at eliminating undernourishment by 2030, combining domestic production with an expanded distribution network and cooperation between public institutions and private businesses.

RELATED: Venezuela Oil Production Hits 1.25 Million Barrels Daily in Major Recovery

The Venezuela Alimenta Hambre Cero (Venezuela Feeds: Zero Hunger) plan was launched Saturday alongside the opening of the 250th facility in the Mercal and PDVAL food distribution networks in La Trinidad. The rollout also included the deployment of 100 mobile food outlets nationwide and the simultaneous opening of 10 supermarket-style establishments in other regions.

The new facility features a meat-cutting center for retail sales. According to the government, more than 90% of Venezuela’s food supply comes from domestic production, which it identifies as a foundation for improving access to essential goods across the country.

“All efforts, all capacities, the local economy, the large agro-industrial sector, the entire distribution and logistics network, financial resources and fuel incentives will be brought together to achieve this strategic objective,” Acting President said during a broadcast on state television channel Venezolana de Televisión.

First announced on Oct. 12, 2026, at the Food and Agriculture Organization’s World Food Forum in Rome, the plan is built around six strategic areas designed to coordinate government and private sector efforts. These include support for community-based economic activity and local entrepreneurship through a proposed Local Economy Law.

The initiative also prioritizes scientific innovation in nutrition and the development of statistical monitoring and oversight systems.

“We are very close to achieving our zero-hunger goal. We made this commitment to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), to the country and to our citizens,” Delcy Rodríguez said.

She also pointed to the effects of unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States, saying they had restricted access to financing, agricultural inputs, technology and spare parts needed to sustain domestic production chains.

Senior government officials responsible for the economy, digital government, food, youth, industry and commerce, agriculture, and science and technology attended the launch.

Private sector representatives included Ítalo Atencio, president of the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Service Stores (ANSA), and Juvenal Arbeláez, president of the Venezuelan Chamber of the Food Industry (CAVIDEA).

The plan brings together food distribution infrastructure, domestic production and public-private cooperation as Venezuela pursues its goal of eliminating undernourishment by 2030.