After a year of deliberations, on March 27, 2025, Israel’s High Court of Justice rejected the petition submitted by human rights organizations regarding Israel's humanitarian obligations toward Gaza. The petition called on the court to order Israel to allow free and rapid passage of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, to increase the volume of aid, and to provide aid to the population, under its duty as an occupying power in Gaza.
The court ruled as follows:
- The laws of occupation (belligerent occupation) do not apply to Israel, as it doesn’t have effective control over the Gaza Strip; instead, Hamas continues to exercise governmental power there. As a result, Israel is not considered an occupying power in Gaza and is not obligated to provide aid to the population.
- Israel does, however, bear humanitarian obligations as a party to an armed conflict, which require it to allow and facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza. These obligations are derived from the laws of war and Israeli law and are subject to military constraints and the humanitarian situation on the ground.
- Israel has met its obligations by allowing aid into Gaza throughout the months of war. It has facilitated the entry of humanitarian goods, coordinated with aid organizations, and has not restricted food supplies into Gaza—even during active fighting.
Three important points arise from the ruling:
First, the court refrained from reviewing the legality of the government’s decision to stop humanitarian aid and the electricity sales to Gaza since the fighting resumed on March 2, 2025. According to the court, this decision fell outside the scope of the current ruling as it was made after the ruling had been written and significantly changed the factual and legal basis of the petition. This allowed the government to delay aid further and provided the court additional time before needing to rule on the issue in a separate petition—should aid to the Strip not resume. It should be noted that a separate petition regarding the supply of electricity has already been submitted.
Second, if Israel decides to reoccupy Gaza, it is important to understand the significant implications and obligations associated with the move, as clearly outlined in the ruling. The Court will find it increasingly challenging to overlook any violations by Israel of its obligations as an “occupying power.”
Lastly, even if the ruling does not assist Israel in upholding the principle of complementarity and blocking the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, it may still help counter accusations that Israel is preventing aid and starving the population in the legal proceedings against it in the courts in The Hague.
After a year of deliberations, on March 27, 2025, Israel’s High Court of Justice rejected the petition submitted by human rights organizations regarding Israel's humanitarian obligations toward Gaza. The petition called on the court to order Israel to allow free and rapid passage of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, to increase the volume of aid, and to provide aid to the population, under its duty as an occupying power in Gaza.
The court ruled as follows:
Three important points arise from the ruling:
First, the court refrained from reviewing the legality of the government’s decision to stop humanitarian aid and the electricity sales to Gaza since the fighting resumed on March 2, 2025. According to the court, this decision fell outside the scope of the current ruling as it was made after the ruling had been written and significantly changed the factual and legal basis of the petition. This allowed the government to delay aid further and provided the court additional time before needing to rule on the issue in a separate petition—should aid to the Strip not resume. It should be noted that a separate petition regarding the supply of electricity has already been submitted.
Second, if Israel decides to reoccupy Gaza, it is important to understand the significant implications and obligations associated with the move, as clearly outlined in the ruling. The Court will find it increasingly challenging to overlook any violations by Israel of its obligations as an “occupying power.”
Lastly, even if the ruling does not assist Israel in upholding the principle of complementarity and blocking the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, it may still help counter accusations that Israel is preventing aid and starving the population in the legal proceedings against it in the courts in The Hague.