Joshua Simmons, the US State Department lawyer, argues that Israel has no legal obligation to allow UN aid agencies like UNRWA into Gaza. His position is based on a narrow interpretation of international law, but there are strong counterarguments rooted in humanitarian principles, legal obligations, and practical realities. Here's how his claims is countered:
-
Israel's Duties Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Simmons suggests Israel has no duty to facilitate aid, but this ignores key legal frameworks:
- Geneva Conventions (1949): As the occupying power, Israel has obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 55 & 59) to ensure the civilian population's access to food and medical supplies. Even if Israel disputes its "occupation" status, its effective control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and coastline imposes responsibilities.
- Additional Protocol I (1977): Article 70 mandates that parties in conflict must allow and facilitate rapid, unimpeded humanitarian aid to civilians in need.
- Customary International Law: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly ruled (e.g., in Nicaragua v. US) that states must not block humanitarian assistance to civilians in crises.
-
UNRWA's Critical Role in Gaza Simmons implies that UNRWA is dispensable, but this ignores reality:
- Primary Lifeline: UNRWA provides food, shelter, and healthcare to over 1.7 million displaced Gazans. No other agency has the same logistical capacity.
- Collective Punishment Risk: Blocking UNRWA (due to unproven allegations against a few staff) risks mass starvation, violating prohibitions on collective punishment (Geneva Convention IV, Article 33).
-
US & Israel's Contradictions
- US Pushes for Aid, Yet Blocks UNRWA: The Biden administration has called for more aid to Gaza while defunding UNRWA—creating a gap no other group can fill quickly.
- Israel's Control Over Gaza: Israel restricts land crossings, inspects (and often delays) aid trucks, and has bombed UN facilities. If it has "no duty" to allow aid, why does it control its entry?
-
ICJ's Provisional Measures (2024)
- The ICJ ordered Israel to "take immediate and effective measures to ensure humanitarian aid" in its January 2024 ruling on South Africa's genocide case. Blocking UNRWA violates this binding order.
-
Moral & Strategic Consequences
- Humanitarian Catastrophe: Over 34,000+ dead (mostly civilians), famine risks (IPC Phase 5), and disease outbreaks make aid access a moral imperative.
- Security Implications: Starvation fuels desperation, undermining long-term stability and Israel's own security.
Conclusion Simmons' argument relies on a selective reading of law, ignoring Israel's de facto control over Gaza and its IHL obligations. Even if legal technicalities are debated, the humanitarian imperative and ICJ rulings make clear that Israel (and its allies) must facilitate—not obstruct—aid. The US, as a major donor and UNSC member, should pressure Israel to allow UNRWA's operations, not justify their blockade
