> The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

I don't understand why this would matter. Does it matter the rationale for increasing aid? I would think the only thing that should matter would be weather the aid was sufficient or not. (I appreciate in the end icc pretrial felt it wasn't enough , but i think that is the only thing that should matter)

Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

I think it does matter, because it's another indicator for intent.

If the starvation is a "simple" side-effect of the combat situation, but you're working actively to alleviate it on your own volition (by doing your best to let in aid organizations, etc) then it's obvious to see there is no intent to it.

If, on the other hand, you have to be pressured by the international community, including your closest allies for every tiny step in the direction of letting in aid, and you will immediately jump two steps back as soon as the pressure eases slightly, then it can be inferred that you really really want the starvation to happen and your only problem with the situation is getting away with it.

(Not even starting with all the government officials who spelled out the whole intent explicitly in public, documented quotes)

> Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

The problem is that the murder is happening here and the friend is trying - badly - to convince the person to pull out the knife.

Israel was expected, under international law, to unconditionally allow aid for the civilians. Israel used it as a bargaining chip, effectively holding civilians hostage.

The rationale for supplying aid might not matter when the aid is sufficient. Although, coercive aid might still be a problem; I'm unfamiliar with international law on this.

But when aid is not sufficient, I think rationale/intent makes more of a difference. If you're doing it for the right reasons and putting in a good effort, sufficiency may not be acheivable and it may not be right to charge you with not acheiving it. If you're only doing it to keep your friends happy, and it's insufficient, maybe there was more you could have done.

The word intent is oftentimes used in The judicial system to measure culpability and punishment:

whether somebody accidentally stabbed a person 90 times or intentionally stabbed the person 90 times, for instance, is captured via the concept of intent.

> Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

If they did not carry out any action then this holds true. But there were actions carried out that amounts to assault and attempted murder.

> Like if someone is accused of murder,

This analogy has issues.

Topic is war. As far as international law is concerned, it’s “ok” to shoot people, blow them up and maim them.

I would propose analogy from a contact sport like mma (or the movie “purge”).

Bad things, that usually are forbidden, are allowed and even expected to be done in the event. Rules just add some restriction on how and why.