UK tells ICJ Israel's ban on aid to Gaza unjustifiable
The United Kingdom delegation to the UN's top court on Thursday criticised Israel's two-month ban on humanitarian aid to Gaza as legally unjustifiable.
"Israel must facilitate full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian provision to the population of Gaza, including food, water and electricity, and must ensure access to medical care in accordance with international humanitarian law," Sally Langrish, legal director and advisor at the UK's foreign office, told a panel of judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
The UK was among 137 states that voted in favour of a UN resolution in December calling on the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on Israel's obligation to respect to the presence and activities of the UN and other organisations, as well as third states, and in particular to ensure and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinians.
On Friday, the court is set to conclude five days of hearings, in which the majority of states argued that Israel is in breach of its international legal obligations to facilitate the entry of aid to the population under its occupation.
The US on Wednesday disputed that opinion, arguing for an interpretation of international humanitarian law in favour of limiting such obligation due to military necessity and Israel's security.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
US officials also questioned the impartiality of the UN's agency for Palestinian refugees, Unrwa, suggesting that curtailing its work in occupied territory is lawful.
Like most interventions during the past week of proceedings, the UK's delegation rejected the US arguments.
Citing articles 59 and 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Langrish said that Israel as an occupying power must facilitate the provision of aid to occupied Palestine, including food and medical supplies.
If the population is inadequately supplied, Israel is under a legal obligation to agree to relief schemes on behalf of the population under its occupation, or to provide that relief itself.
"Refusal to negotiate or agree to relief schemes will constitute a violation of Article 59," she told the court.
"The occupying power must facilitate relief schemes by all means at its disposal," she added. "This obligation is unconditional."
Additionally, Langrish said that Israel has no right to block other states or impartial humanitarian organisations from providing relief if the population has insufficient aid.
"It would be incompatible with a good faith performance of Article 59 to refuse an offer of assistance from an organisation that has capacity," she said.
Unrwa is 'impartial and neutral'
"The United Kingdom considers that Unrwa is an impartial humanitarian organisation for the purposes of Article 59," Langrish told the ICJ.
The proceedings were prompted by Israel banning Unrwa in October, an event that sparked global outrage and calls for Israel to be ejected from the United Nations.
The country was accused of violating the founding charter, particularly the privileges and immunities enjoyed by UN agencies.
The laws effectively ban Unrwa from operating in Israel, Gaza, the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israel's government has long been hostile towards Unrwa, partially because it upholds the refugee status of Palestinians who were expelled from their homes in the 1948 Nakba and their descendants.
In late January 2024, Israel accused 12 Unrwa workers of involvement in the 7 October Hamas-led attacks, alleging they had distributed ammunition and aided in civilian kidnappings.
But a UN inquiry published in April last year found no evidence of wrongdoing by Unrwa staff, noting that Israel had neither responded to requests for names and information nor "informed Unrwa of any concrete concerns relating to Unrwa staff since 2011".
Langrish quoted the UN report as saying "since 2017, Unrwa has established and updated a significant number of policies, mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the obligation to uphold the principle of neutrality".
Michael Wood KC, who examined Israel's obligations as a United Nations member, cited the 1949 convention on the immunities of the UN as applicable in the case of Unrwa.
"The privileges and immunities of the United Nations are applicable to Unrwa, a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, and must be respected at all times," he told the court.
ICRC access to Palestinian detainees
Langrish highlighted the importance of the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in protecting victims of armed conflicts, including detainees.
"As members of the court are well aware, the law of occupation provides a special position for the ICRC that shall be recognised and respected at all times," she said.
She criticised Israel's denial of the ICRC's access to Palestinian detainees.
"There have been repeated credible reports of ill treatment of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli custody since the 7 October attacks," she said.
Langrish noted that the ICRC has not been able to visit Israeli captives held in Gaza.
"Hostages released have shared horrific stories of ill treatment and abuse that may amount to torture," she said.
"This also is completely unacceptable, but cannot serve as justification for Israel to deny the ICRC access to Palestinian detainees since October 2023."
The full verbatim record for the proceedings can be accessed at the court's website here.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
