Former FAO Director Says He Was Ousted for Criticizing Israel’s Gaza Policies

A former senior official at the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization has come forward with allegations that he was effectively dismissed from his post because he spoke out against Israeli policies in Gaza, according to an interview he gave to the AFP news agency.

Ben Davis, who until recently served as Director of Rural Transformation and Gender Equality at the Rome-based FAO, said he received notification in July that his contract would not be renewed. The stated reason, he explained, was an alleged breach of the organization’s impartiality rules—an accusation he firmly rejects.

At the heart of the dispute, Davis said, were weekly silent protests he helped organize at the FAO’s headquarters. These gatherings were intended to draw attention to the starvation and famine conditions afflicting civilians in Gaza. According to Davis, hundreds of colleagues participated at the height of the movement, though attendance has since dwindled to roughly thirty or forty people per week.

“They accused me of organizing these moments of silence on the situation of starvation and famine in Gaza,” Davis told AFP. He maintains that the vigils were peaceful, apolitical expressions of concern over a humanitarian catastrophe, not violations of the neutrality expected of international civil servants.

A second factor in his departure appears to be a report he contributed to that examined food availability in Gaza alongside questions of humanitarian law. The document was published in May, but Davis said officials later instructed that it be removed from circulation. “We were told to take it down,” he recalled, adding that they “weren’t allowed to make any references to humanitarian law.”

The timing of Davis’s departure has raised eyebrows given public remarks made this week by FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu. Speaking at the outset of a filmed session on forestry, Qu appeared to issue a broad warning to staff about engaging with human rights issues.

“We don’t allow you to play the game here of human rights,” Qu said, according to the account provided. He went on to acknowledge that human rights are “very important” but suggested that such matters belong to the human rights agency in Geneva rather than to the FAO. “If you want to take care, go there,” he added.

The director-general also seemed to reference disciplinary actions taken against senior personnel who, in his words, “play the political game.” Qu stated that he had fired individuals for violating the FAO constitution and staff regulations, while describing himself as “a very soft person” who had not dismissed many people. Nevertheless, he warned, “I will fire more people if they are against the law.”

When asked whether he believed those remarks were directed at him, Davis responded, “absolutely.” He noted that the director-general had previously reprimanded him publicly for being “too political.” Davis also expressed concern about the prospect of further firings, suggesting that the comments could have a chilling effect on staff who might otherwise raise legitimate humanitarian concerns.

The FAO has not issued any public response to the allegations. An AFP request for comment went unanswered, leaving the organization’s position on the matter unclear.

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of the broader conflict in Gaza, which has exacted a devastating human toll. According to figures cited in the source material, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 74,000 people since October 2023. Even after a so-called ceasefire was agreed upon in October 2025, at least 1,431 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks—a figure that underscores the fragility of the truce and the persistent violence on the ground.

For international organizations like the FAO, the episode raises difficult questions about the balance between maintaining neutrality and responding to humanitarian emergencies. UN agencies are expected to uphold strict impartiality, yet critics argue that this principle can be invoked to silence legitimate criticism of powerful member states. The line between political advocacy and humanitarian reporting is often blurred, particularly when the subject involves a high-profile conflict with strong geopolitical dimensions.

Davis’s case also highlights the internal tensions that can arise when staff members feel compelled by conscience to address issues that their institutions may prefer to avoid. Silent vigils, after all, are among the least disruptive forms of protest—yet they became the basis for disciplinary action, according to Davis. His account suggests that even symbolic gestures can be perceived as threats to an organization’s carefully managed public posture.

The removal of the May report on food availability and humanitarian law is another point of contention. If accurate, it would mean that FAO staff were prevented from referencing legal frameworks designed to protect civilians during armed conflict—a striking restriction for an agency whose mandate includes addressing hunger and food security in crisis zones. Humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, is central to ensuring that civilian populations have access to food and aid, making its exclusion from a relevant report particularly notable.

Whether Davis’s allegations will prompt an independent review or broader debate within the UN system remains to be seen. For now, his story adds another layer to the ongoing scrutiny of how international bodies navigate the intersection of politics, law, and human suffering. It also places Qu Dongyu’s leadership under a spotlight, as his public remarks about firing staff and rejecting human rights advocacy within the FAO may invite further questions from member states and watchdog groups.

As the situation develops, the episode serves as a reminder that even within organizations dedicated to humanitarian principles, speaking truth to power can carry significant personal and professional costs. Davis’s experience, if corroborated, would suggest that the space for dissent within the UN’s specialized agencies may be narrower than many observers assume—and that the consequences of crossing certain lines can be swift and career-ending.