Israel’s High Court of Justice has ruled against a petition claiming that the government is using starvation as a tool of war in Gaza. The unanimous decision, released Thursday, stated that petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, reinforcing Israel’s stance on its humanitarian aid efforts amid ongoing conflict with Hamas.
Court Rejects Petition, Cites Insufficient Evidence
In a strongly worded ruling, the court stated that human rights groups challenging Israel’s policies had “not even come close” to proving that the country was intentionally starving civilians in Gaza. The petitioners argued that Israel’s control over border crossings and supply lines had created a dire humanitarian crisis, but the justices determined that current Israeli actions do not constitute a violation of international legal prohibitions against collective punishment.
The decision was reached prior to the latest temporary halt on humanitarian aid transfers to Gaza, a move that has further complicated the region’s humanitarian situation. Despite concerns raised by international organizations, the court maintained that Israel has taken “a variety of steps” to provide for the civilian population’s needs.
Israel’s Status in Gaza: Not a ‘Belligerent Occupation’
A key issue in the case was whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza amount to a “belligerent occupation,” a designation that would impose greater legal obligations to protect civilian populations. The petitioners contended that Israel exercises significant control over Gaza and should be held responsible under international law.
However, the court ruled that at least two of the three conditions required for such a designation were not met. Specifically:
- The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not have “effective control” over Gaza.
- Israeli authorities do not exercise governance over the enclave.
These findings align with Israel’s long-standing position that Hamas, rather than Israel, is the governing authority in Gaza, limiting Israel’s legal responsibilities.
Hamas Accused of Exploiting Aid and Civilian Spaces
The court also pointed to Hamas’s role in exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. According to the ruling, Hamas and other militant groups have been documented using civilian infrastructure for military purposes and diverting aid intended for non-combatants.
Examples cited in the ruling include:
- The operation of military command centers within hospitals and schools.
- The seizure of humanitarian aid, including food and medical supplies, by Hamas operatives.
- The use of designated humanitarian zones as launch sites for attacks against Israel.
The court’s findings align with reports from the Israeli government and intelligence sources, which have long accused Hamas of prioritizing its military objectives over the well-being of Gaza’s civilian population.
Rights Groups Condemn Ruling, Call for International Pressure
Despite the court’s findings, human rights organizations have sharply criticized the decision, arguing that it effectively grants Israel a “green light to continue war crimes.” Groups advocating for Palestinian rights contend that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with reports of widespread food shortages and medical supply crises.
The ruling has also intensified calls for international bodies, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, to investigate Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Some legal experts argue that while the High Court’s decision is legally binding within Israel, it does not prevent global human rights organizations from pursuing further legal action.
What Happens Next?
The court’s decision reinforces Israel’s legal standing amid growing international scrutiny. However, with the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsening and international bodies continuing to monitor the conflict, the debate over Israel’s obligations under international law is far from over.
For now, the ruling provides legal cover for the Israeli government and military as they continue operations against Hamas. But with ongoing diplomatic pressure and increasing global concern, this legal battle is unlikely to be the last.
