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

▲

bawolff 2 years ago | parent [-]

This doesn't seem to match what the ICC is saying. I don't see anywhere that the icc accused Israel of using aid as a bargaining chip.

▲

vharuck 2 years ago | parent [-]

From the announcement:

>decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional.

I may be misinterpreting legal jargon, but "conditional" implies Israel often didn't want to allow humanitarian assistance unless Israel received something. This isn't allowed under international law. Relevant excerpt from the announcement:

>This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal.

Parties to conflict are expected to facilitate aid, not just allow it, and definitely not set conditions.

	▲	bawolff 2 years ago \| parent [-]
		Hmm, good point. I'm not 100% sure i agree - i think it depends on what the conditions were, there could be non-bargaining conditions, but you've convinced me that is a plausible way to read it. > Parties to conflict are expected to facilitate aid, not just allow it, and definitely not set conditions. I think they are allowed to set some conditions, they just can't be arbitrary or prevent aid. Like they can set conditions around checkpoints, inspections, where aid can enter the country, as long as it isn't arbitrary or impedes the aid. (Obviously the ICC is implying something much different than those types of conditions) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule55