If a justification was given we'd be able to evaluate the worthiness of that decision - if there were technical notes about, for instance, food safety concerns, we could evaluate the justification against other standards in different areas of the world around proper formula storage.
Without a justification the decision is arbitrary and silences any ability to push back against it within the normal bounds of dialog. A justification would potentially allow aid groups to remedy whatever the specific deficiency is if it is a reasonable deficiency to remedy.
If there was a justification it might be acceptable - depending on the justification - without a justification it is unacceptable when there is such a clear need. The aid is blocked and there is no recourse to unblock it outside the current attempts to just smuggle it in.
No, but the callousness of an arbitrary decision without even spending 10 seconds to make up a pretend reason is a pure display of power. They do what they want and they don’t care one bit about even looking like the good guys.
That would be an acceptable justification for confiscating sugar. If Hamas were making rocket fuel somehow out of baby formula, then yes, that would be an acceptable justification.
That said baby formula cannot in fact be meaningfully used to make explosives, so this is not acceptable.
Only in the same way that pointing at a starving infant as a prop is a moral justification for using food meant for the infant instead to manufacture weapons.
That rather depends on the justification. "We think you might be planning to use that to feed babies," no. "There's a small canister of nerve gas concealed in the middle," yes.
