By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK government, represented by Sally Langrish, argued before the International Court of Justice that Israel’s refusal to grant the ICRC access to Palestinian prisoners violates the Geneva Conventions, and that Hamas’s actions do not justify this. The UK also insisted that UNRWA is a neutral body with which Israel must cooperate to deliver aid to Gaza, citing articles 55 and 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which obligate Israel to facilitate aid provision and ensure UNRWA’s safety. This position directly contradicts the US’s arguments and highlights a clear divergence in legal interpretation. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, leading to a humanitarian crisis, forms the crux of the ICJ’s advisory opinion request.
Read the original article here
Britain’s recent statement to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demanding Israel grant the Red Cross access to jailed Palestinians highlights a complex and deeply troubling situation. The core issue is straightforward: access to prisoners of war and detainees is a fundamental tenet of international humanitarian law, and denying this access constitutes a serious breach.
The assertion that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation to ensure the safety and security of third-party aid organizations, like the Red Cross, operating in occupied territories is a cornerstone of this argument. This obligation extends beyond simply granting permission; it necessitates creating a safe environment, even if that requires challenging logistical hurdles.
The complications, however, are considerable. The example of UN aid convoys in Gaza, where the UN’s neutrality is compromised by the presence of Israeli military escorts, exposes the intricate web of political and security concerns that makes access difficult. This delicate balance underscores the immense pressure faced by aid agencies trying to maintain impartiality in a highly volatile conflict zone.
The ongoing controversy concerning the looting of international aid in Gaza further complicates matters. Allegations that Israel is not doing enough to stop this looting, coupled with the UN’s reluctance to allow Israeli military protection of its convoys, raises questions about the effectiveness of international mechanisms to protect both aid workers and humanitarian supplies. The security vacuum allows criminal elements to exploit the situation, hindering aid delivery and increasing the risk to those involved in the aid process.
The situation is further complicated by the accusations leveled against the Red Cross itself. Claims of bias, including past meetings between the Red Cross’s Director-General and Hamas officials and alleged coordination with Hamas for prisoner releases, raise concerns about the organization’s perceived neutrality. Such accusations, whether true or not, undoubtedly undermine the credibility of the Red Cross in some eyes and raise questions about the effectiveness of utilizing them as an impartial intermediary.
The apparent asymmetry in the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian hostages also fuels the controversy. The fact that Hamas is refusing access to the Red Cross for its held Israeli hostages while Israel is under pressure to grant access to the Red Cross for Palestinian prisoners highlights a key challenge. While it is completely understandable that both parties must grant access to the ICRC, it fuels the argument that the ICJ appears focused solely on one side of this issue.
This asymmetry creates a compelling argument against Israel’s alleged failure to cooperate. While the absence of reciprocal access by Hamas does not exonerate Israel, it raises questions about the application of international law in a conflict where one party, Hamas, is widely considered a terrorist organization. The expectation that a state actor, Israel, adheres to higher standards of ethical conduct than a non-state actor, like Hamas, is a frequently employed argument. However, this does not absolve Israel of its obligations under international humanitarian law.
The situation brings into stark relief the profound challenges of humanitarian intervention during armed conflict. International law aims to protect civilians and prisoners of war. However, enforcing these laws in conflict zones riddled with violence, mistrust and accusations of bias presents a formidable challenge, even for organizations specifically tasked with such intervention.
Ultimately, the necessity for the Red Cross to gain access to both Israeli and Palestinian prisoners is crucial. Regardless of the difficulties, ignoring the humanitarian imperative to ensure the well-being of those detained is unacceptable. The ICJ’s intervention, while potentially perceived as biased, highlights the critical need for all parties to comply with international law, even if it requires overcoming significant obstacles and addressing accusations of partiality. If the ultimate goal is to advance the principles of humanitarian law, then the Red Cross should have unfettered access to all detainees, regardless of the challenges.