This legal conclusion echoes longstanding principles under the Fourth Geneva Convention, specifically Article 23, as well as similar provisions in the U.S. Defense Department Law of War Manual and customary international law: Aid is not unconditional when it risks empowering a belligerent force. Even U.S. President Joe Biden underscored this in Oct. 2023, saying that if Hamas diverted aid, the assistance would—and should—stop.

Critically, the court also rejected claims that Israel is subject to the legal obligations of an occupying power. Based on an in-depth factual analysis—including Hamas’s continued control in large areas of Gaza, reestablishment of its administrative functions and Israel’s lack of effective governmental authority—the court concluded that the laws of belligerent occupation simply do not apply. In doing so, it directly rebutted the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion, which took a broader, speculative view of Israeli authority without full access to facts, participants, or classified military intelligence.

Let’s be clear: No court on Earth scrutinizes its own military in wartime the way Israel’s does. No other democracy has fought such sustained urban combat against a genocidal enemy hiding in homes, schools, hospitals and mosques, while remaining under the microscope of its own judiciary. And yet, Israel’s legal system not only holds to—but exceeds—the standards expected by the international community.

Contrast this with the ICC, which has moved with stunning speed toward possible indictments of Israeli officials, all while ignoring Hamas’s brutalities or pretending that Oct. 7 never happened. Contrast it, too, with the ICJ, which entertained South Africa’s politicized genocide charges without addressing the deeply asymmetric reality of this war: that Israel is fighting a defensive campaign against a terrorist group that openly vows to repeat the massacre of its civilians.

Israel’s High Court recognized what the world must not forget: the “Iron Swords” war was forced upon Israel after one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in modern history. It was also, as the court stated, “forced on the uninvolved civilians of Gaza” by Hamas and its allies, who embed themselves among civilians, steal aid and carry out military operations from protected civilian infrastructure.

The court acknowledged the humanitarian suffering in Gaza. It also acknowledged the limits of what Israel can control in a warzone, especially when international organizations operate in Gaza without coordinating with Israeli forces. And yet, even with these challenges, the court documented how Israel has improved aid flows, opened more crossing points, coordinated access and constantly evaluated the humanitarian situation—without violating its legal obligations.

This ruling is a judicial firewall against politicized attacks on Israel’s legitimacy. It is an affirmation—by a court rooted in the rule of law—that international law is not a weapon to be used selectively against democracies defending themselves.

The truth matters. The law matters. And what Israel’s Supreme Court just showed is that even in the fog of war, when politics runs hot and justice often runs cold, there is still room for reasoned, moral and lawful adjudication.

That’s more than can be said for the tribunals in The Hague.

The article was written by Arsen Ostrovsky in collaboration with John Spencer Jthat he is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, codirector of MWI’s Urban Warfare Project and host of the “Urban Warfare Project Podcast.”

Published in JNS, April  10, 2025.