UN Food Agency Official Says Contract Axed Over Gaza Criticism as FAO Chief Warns Staff Against 'Human Rights Game'

A senior official at the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has come forward with claims that his employment was terminated because he spoke out against Israeli policies in Gaza, a case that has ignited fresh concerns about political pressure inside one of the world's most prominent humanitarian bodies.

Ben Davis, who until recently held the position of Director of Rural Transformation and Gender Equality at the Rome-based FAO, told the AFP news agency on Wednesday that he received notification in July that his contract would not be renewed. According to Davis, the decision was justified by allegations that he had violated the organization's impartiality rules.

At the center of the dispute, Davis said, is his involvement in organizing weekly silent protests at FAO headquarters. These gatherings were intended to draw attention to the starvation and famine conditions facing civilians in Gaza. He explained that the demonstrations were deliberately low-key and non-disruptive in nature, yet still drew the ire of senior management.

"They accused me of organizing these moments of silence on the situation of starvation and famine in Gaza," Davis recounted. He noted that the participation in these vigils had been substantial at their peak, with hundreds of staff members joining. In recent months, however, attendance has dwindled to a committed core of roughly 30 to 40 people who continue to gather on a weekly basis.

Davis also pointed to a separate incident involving a report he had worked on concerning food availability in Gaza and its relationship to international humanitarian law. The document was published in May, but according to Davis, it quickly became a source of friction within the agency. "We were told to take it down," he said, adding that staff were expressly forbidden from making any references to humanitarian law in the text.

The timing and nature of these allegations have raised questions about the boundaries between staff advocacy and institutional neutrality at the UN agency, which is mandated to lead international efforts to defeat hunger and improve nutrition and food security worldwide.

Those questions were sharpened considerably by remarks made by FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu during a filmed session on forestry that began on Tuesday. In what appeared to be a direct warning to staff, Qu stated, "we don't allow you to play the game here of human rights."

While acknowledging that human rights are "very important," Qu suggested that such matters fall outside the FAO's direct remit. "Of course, human rights is very important, but we have the human rights agency in Geneva," he said. "If you want to take care, go there."

The director-general then appeared to link personnel decisions directly to political activity within the organization. "That's why some senior members play the political game here, I fire him," Qu said. He went on to assert that staff must follow the FAO constitution and staff regulations, adding, "But I'm a very soft person, I didn't fire that many." He concluded with a warning: "I will fire more people if they are against the law."

The FAO did not respond to a request for comment from AFP regarding either Davis's claims or the director-general's statements.

When asked directly whether he believed Qu's comments were aimed at him, Davis answered, "absolutely." He noted that the director-general had previously admonished him in public for what Qu characterized as being "too political." Davis also expressed alarm at the broader implications of the threat to dismiss additional staff members.

The case arrives against the backdrop of an escalating humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. According to figures cited in the reporting, Israel's military campaign in the territory has killed more than 74,000 people since October 2023. Additionally, at least 1,431 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel was reached in October 2025, underscoring the fragility of the truce and the persistence of lethal violence.

For UN agencies operating in conflict zones, the perception of impartiality is a foundational requirement that enables access to vulnerable populations and preserves the trust of member states. However, internal critics argue that a rigid interpretation of neutrality can chill legitimate debate and prevent staff from bearing witness to violations of international law they observe firsthand.

The dispute also touches on a longstanding tension within the UN system regarding the scope of its specialized agencies. While the FAO's core mandate is technical and agricultural, its work inevitably intersects with human rights when hunger is used as a weapon of war or when access to food is deliberately restricted.

Davis's account suggests that senior management at the FAO is actively seeking to narrow the organization's focus and silence internal dissent that could complicate its relationships with powerful member states. The director-general's public threat to fire more employees is likely to have a chilling effect on staff who might otherwise speak out on controversial topics.

The episode comes as UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly called for the protection of humanitarian workers and respect for international law in Gaza. The contrast between those appeals and the internal messaging at one of the UN's key food agencies may deepen concerns among member states and advocacy groups about the politicization of humanitarian institutions.

For now, Davis's contract has not been renewed, and he has joined the ranks of former officials who say their careers were cut short for speaking truth to power. Whether his case prompts a broader reckoning within the FAO or remains an isolated incident will depend largely on how member states and the organization's leadership respond to the growing scrutiny. The director-general's vow to "fire more people" suggests that, at least for the moment, the leadership intends to double down rather than back away from its stance.